Mamdani’s election no victory for socialism
Zohran Mamdani began his victory speech on being elected mayor of New York City:
‘The sun may have set over our city this evening, but as Eugene Debs once said: “I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity.” For as long as we can remember, the working people of New York have been told by the wealthy and the well-connected that power does not belong in their hands.’
and ended it:
‘Together, New York, we’re going to freeze the rent. Together, New York, we’re going to make buses fast and free. Together, New York, we’re going to deliver universal childcare. Let the words we’ve spoken together, the dreams we’ve dreamt together, become the agenda we deliver together. New York, this power, it’s yours. This city belongs to you.’
This is a bold claim that his election represented the passing of political power in New York into the hands of ‘working people’. In fact, it represented the election of a political leader who promised to improve things for them. No doubt he is sincere and no doubt many are hoping that he will do this, but the question is will he be able to?
Peter Joseph, of Zeitgeist fame, thinks not:
‘For 18 years, I’ve tried to explain that the idea of getting the right person into political power—by whatever means—will never be enough to bring society back onto a sustainable and equitable path. The larger systemic forces, spiraling like a hurricane of negating feedback loops, will devour any fundamentally contradictory personality, policy, or platform. This is not an indictment of democracy as an idea, but of democracy as it exists within the larger construct of market capitalism—a power structure first and foremost. I want everyone to watch, as time moves forward, how this well-meaning man will be completely paralyzed and ultimately destroyed if he truly attempts any meaningful anti-market policy changes, or what he refers to as “democratic socialism.” By the end of this exercise, I hope people will realize that if you expect to change society, the political system cannot be the only system you rely on, because it is fundamentally and inherently corrupt by its very nested nature within the confines of market capitalism.’
We don’t know about wanting people to just watch Mamdani fail (they should rather be active in campaigning to replace the profit system with socialism as a society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of life) but Joseph is basically right. There are structural reasons why no politician operating within capitalist system can honour their promises to improve things, however sincere or determined they might be.
Mamdani has been elected to run the affairs of a big city but within the framework of capitalism, and capitalism is a system that imposes its priority — the making and accumulation of profits — on political as well as economic actors. That profits need to be made, and encouraged to be made, is something that anyone elected to political office within capitalism has to contend with and, in the end, accept and even impose.
Even though elected as the candidate of the pro-capitalist Democratic Party, Mamdani stated that he was a ‘democratic socialist’ and is in fact a member of the ‘Democratic Socialists of America’ (DSA) which proclaims:
‘Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society… We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.’
The DSA is one of the fragments of the old reformist ‘Socialist Party of America’ that imploded in 1972, with one part — them — deciding to enter the Democratic Party and pursue their aims there. The SPA was the party of Eugene Debs — hence Mamdani’s nod to him in his opening remarks. Debs stood for President of the USA on five occasions between 1900 and 1920. Launching his 1912 campaign he said of the Republican and Democratic parties:
‘They are substantially one in what they stand for. They are opposed to each other on no question of principle but purely in a contest for the spoils of office. To the workers of the country these two parties in name are one in fact. They, or rather it, stands for capitalism, for the private ownership of the means of subsistence, for the exploitation of the workers, and for wage-slavery.’
This is as true today as it was then, but if it’s reforms you are after (as Mamdani and the others in the DSA are) there is some sense in working within a party that has a good chance of winning political office and so be in a position to implement reforms. Mamdani is now in that position and can (if he can raise the funds) implement this but faces a further obstacle — the capitalist economic system which will not allow people’s needs to be put before profit and will undermine his reforms, in particular his flagship ones aimed at reducing the cost of living (rent freeze, free buses, free childcare) as this will exert a downward pressure on money wages. It will be swings and roundabouts.
If, on the other hand, you want socialism this makes no sense at all since, in supporting a party that stands for capitalism, you are supporting capitalism even if you seek to improve it. That’s why we say Mamdani’s election was not a victory for socialism.
ADAM BUICK