When I wrote about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani a few months ago, here was my main takeaway.
Mamdani is an AOC-style hard-core leftist who wants to travel in the wrong direction as far and as fast as Javier Milei is traveling in the right direction.
When asked to elaborate, I sometimes dig into the archives and pull out my 2015 statism spectrum.
Looking at those options, my best guess is that he would position New York City somewhere between Mexico and China.
In other words, New York City would go downhill, perhaps turning into Caracas-on-the-Hudson or something like that.
Another option is to look at my 2×2 matrix from 2016, which I think does a better job of differentiating between different types of statism.
And that matrix does include Venezuela, which is quite appropriate since that’s my guess for what Mamdani’s agenda ultimately would produce.
But is he technically a socialist, i.e., someone who believes in government ownership, central planning, and price controls?
Based on his own words, the answer is yes.
But some people at the New York Times have a different perspective. According to a column by Jeffery Mays, Mamdani isn’t really a socialist.
I’m not joking. Here are some excerpts.
Mr. Mamdani…is a democratic socialist, which means his beliefs are similar to those of socialists but not exactly the same. …Here’s a breakdown of how socialism and democratic socialism work, and where Mr. Mamdani fits in. …Socialism is a doctrine that calls for public control of property and natural resources. …There are different types of socialism and different ideas about the extent of public ownership of property and whether those assets should be controlled via a centralized authority or if more decisions should be made at the local level. …
Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman, has based his campaign on making New York City more affordable, vowing to make buses free and extending free child care, among other similar proposals. …Mr. Mamdani’s plan to pay for his proposals borrows from a traditional Democratic method: increase taxes on the rich. He would also increase the top corporate tax rate, but has proposed nothing remotely close to a socialist-like takeover of private companies.
So we’re supposed believe Mamdani’s agenda is “nothing remotely close” to socialism.
Yet the article notes that Mamdani openly identifies as a socialist.
The New York City D.S.A. describes itself as a branch of the national group, which says it is the “largest socialist organization” in the country. Mr. Mamdani is a member of both. He joined the New York City D.S.A. around 2017… Mr. Mamdani’s stature was such that he spoke at the national D.S.A. convention in 2023. …In the State Legislature, he was part of the D.S.A.’s eight-member “Socialists in Office” group.
So how can Mr. Mays claim that Mamdani is not a socialist and that his agenda is not socialism?
I think the answer is that Mays wants Mamdani to win and he’s trying to make him seems like a run-of-the-mill Democrat so that voters won’t be afraid to vote for him.
And why do I think Mays has that bias?
In part because the article is trying to whitewash Mamdani’s radical agenda.
Butt I also think these two sentences are a clear giveaway. Mays actually wants readers to believe that socialism is for “the benefit of all members of society” and that it means “treating people more equitably.”
The control of resources is then directed toward the benefit of all members of society. …The closest Mr. Mamdani gets to socialism is in his belief in treating people more equitably.
 |
The first sentence is nonsense. Socialism has always produced misery. The only recipe that has ever generated mass prosperity is free enterprise.
Though I suppose the second sentence technically might be true since almost all people are equally poor under socialism. But somehow I don’t think that’s what Mr. Mays is trying to say in the article.
Besides, socialism only treats 99 percent of the population “equitably.” There’s always a narrow slice of socialist leaders who live like kings and queens.
P.S. Since Mamdani comes from a wealthy and privileged background, he would obviously be part of the elite, the kind of person who is called a “limousine liberal” in the United States and a “champagne socialist” in the United Kingdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment