I have no interest in debating New Yorkers about the merits of a Zohran Mamdani mayorship, but it’s important Americans understand one thing about his platform: There’s not a lot about it that counts as truly “radical” outside the American context.
Mamdani isn’t a “communist.” No serious observer — and certainly no political scientist opining in good faith — would describe him that way even if he would, and he wouldn’t and doesn’t.
You could argue, I suppose, that being a communist in 2025 (a “modern communist,” so to speak) needn’t mean advocating for the imposition of one-party rule, centralized economic planning, state ownership of the means of production, severe curtailments on private property and all the rest, but if you uncheck too many of those boxes, you’re not a communist. I’m not sure how else to put it.
Even when he’s not described as a communist, Mamdani’s treated by the American media like some sort of exotic animal. Even the liberal press insists on calling him a “self-described” democratic socialist, as if democratic socialism isn’t a thing, or is something he invented.
The reason we call Argentina’s Javier Milei a “self-described” anarcho-capitalist is because anarcho-capitalism, while not entirely “made up,” is a far fuzzier concept than democratic socialism which, in spirit anyway, overlaps social democracy, the dominant form of government in Europe.
Let me put it this way: If we were on global political safari, we’d see all sorts of creatures from the genus democratic socialist, but confirmed anarcho-capitalist sightings would be exceedingly rare. Because other than Milei, they don’t exist, and have only ever existed by way of ex post facto designation.
It says a lot about the American psyche that running on a platform which proposes redress for egregious manifestations of economic inequality makes one a “radical.” In the European context, that sort of thing’s just par for the course, with allowances for the fact that Europe’s not a monolith: Individual countries can of course be placed on a left-right continuum.
America’s a place where half the electorate actually believes some version of a story that says if you’re poor, it’s almost surely your fault or at least more yours than the system’s. The story also insists on a manifestly insane version of meritocracy, wherein the initial payoff for diligence, ingenuity and hard work is allowed to multiply exponentially — which is to say at a clip wildly disproportionate to the growth rate of the underlying economy — with virtually no checks or impediments.
Taken to its (il)logical conclusion (which is where we are now in America), that story says if you’re food insecure, you surely deserve to starve and if you look up and find yourself worth $300 billion, it must be because you were just that meritorious. So meritorious that you deserve to command a sum of money large enough to fund the entire US government for two full weeks.
I hope this goes without saying, but no one starving “deserves” to starve, and no individual is so meritorious as to have a legitimate claim on $300 billion. Those two propositions (two sides of the American-style capitalism story) are completely ridiculous. And that’s coming from someone (me) who’s fanatically committed to personal responsibility and who, despite knowing that material possessions are no ticket to happiness, is seriously considering a Ferrari California (albeit one that’s more than a decade old — who am I, Elon Musk?).
Whatever you want to say about Mamdani specifically, what he represents is a step in the only direction that’s viable at this point. Note the nuance in that assessment. I didn’t say in the “right” direction. I said in the “only viable” direction. We can’t just keep barreling down the road to ever more absurd versions of Gilded Age-style inegalitarianism.
Eventually — by and by — the discontinuities across society will become so glaring that it isn’t possible to conceive of the body politic as a collective with a shared sense of purpose. There just isn’t anything someone who’s food insecure and rent burdened has in common without a centibillionaire. Not a single thing.
For now, the GOP’s convinced many low-income, working-class Americans that they belong in the same political tent as the ultra-wealthy, but how long can that possibly last? Particularly when the party’s cutting medical benefits and food aid to the poor?
The GOP’s gains among those constituencies came at the expense of Democrats (American “democracy” being a political duopoly), who’ve lost all trust among rural Americans and blue collar voters due to what they view as a betrayal of working class interests in favor of a “woke” social engineering experiment detached from “kitchen table” issues.
Where are all of these disaffected people going to go once they’re completely fed up with both parties? Into the streets, probably. The only thing that’s going to keep this increasingly fragile union from splitting apart at the seams is the elevation of politicians who are serious about redressing economic inequality.
If you’re rich (actually rich, not “rich” in scare quotes, like me), don’t chafe at that: You’re only as secure in your material wealth as the peasantry is pacified, because there are a lot more of them than there are of you. If you want to have a lot, you gotta give them a little. That’s hardly a big ask.
I have no idea whether Mamdani is “for real.” In fact, I don’t even know what “for real” means in that context, even as everyone else claims to. What I do know is that historically, “Let them eat cake” is a dangerous mantra to adopt for the upper echelons of a society.
Coming full circle, it’s not Mamdani who’s “crazy” for wanting to address the worst excesses of the system. It’s us for pretending that system isn’t broken.
AI and drone policing/warfare might have a significant impact on the conclusion that the rich need to give something to the starving, you know, in a world where morality is passe.
I see Mamdani as a test. Do Ds really believe in a “big tent”? And how bad do they want to win?
The things Mamdani believes are well within the traditional D tent, just not in the wealthy corporate neoliberal establishment VIP part of the tent. The people who support him are traditional D voters, its just that they’ve usually been canvassing in the rain not sipping champagne at high-buck fundraisers.
So do Ds shrink the tent because they don’t like the part of it that is most energized? Put another way, do they want Ds to win, or do they want only some Ds to win?
Related topic – Ds did very well on 2025 Election night – VA, NJ, CA.
Well if “Let them eat cake” could be a dangerous mantra…., instead of driving a Ferarri California wearing haute couture, wouldn’t U feel better drivin’ an F150, GMC or Dodge Ram Rebel. :)(A little humor).
I was hoping somebody would ask this.
Here’s a loaded F150: https://www.palmettoford.com/new-Charleston-2025-Ford-F+150-Platinum-1FTFW7L82SFB55393
Here’s the Ferrari: https://preowned.ferrari.com/en-US/a/north-america/used-ferrari/usa/foreign-cars-italia/ferrari-california/ZFF65LJA2A0172215-1760955306170
The Ford’s $86,000. The Ferrari’s $104,000.
Point being: In today’s world, the price comparison’s not quite as extreme as you might be inclined to believe.
In the same vein, go look at Banana Republic’s full price selection and compare it to, say, the sale section on Helmut Lang’s website.
Helmut’s hardly haute couture, but it’s low-line luxury. The day I pay $200 for a Banana Republic sweater instead of $230 for an on-sale Helmut hoodie is the day I pay $86,000 for a new Ford instead of $100,000 for a used Ferrari.
(That loaded F150 is more expensive than my 2024 Benz AMG. How ridiculous is that?)
rem is right. You should buy the Ferrari immediately.
Yeah, but can the farmers use the AMG as a write off?
You know it’s funny: One of the longest of long-time readers here once suggested I should get a G-Wagon because apparently it weighs enough to qualify for some kind of business write-off. But brand new they’re $40k or so above the high-end of the range I can psychologically justify paying for a vehicle.
You ain’t into the Ford Raptors and Dodge Ram Hellcats, they’re more than the Ferrari
That is an absolutely gorgeous car. I had to take care of some things the past week, so I am getting caught up- in reverse order- but hopefully you have already wired the funds and have that car parked in your garage.
Love that design (impossible to beat a Ferrari in the design department) and the color, too.
Hope, also, that you have a great mechanic 🙂
It should be the “the wealth of nations” not
“the wealth of greedy individuals”
Almost nobody in America is a capitalist.
We are herd animal. We are socialist.
So correct. Aid to Families with Dependent Children, SNAP, Section 8, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. are not programs for the poor. They are programs for the rich. Share just enough so that the poor don’t rise up.
“I’d gladly give up half of my wealth if I was guaranteed to keep the other half.” -Joseph Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy had it figured out.
Excellent insights Sir !!
Nail hit on the head!
As someone living outside the US, I would say the article is spot on. It is inconceivable to me how US citizens have been sold such a bill of goods/myths. No wonder the society is so troubled.
Yeah. We’re crazy as hell over here.
I carried the typical “horrified” attitude of Americans toward European socialist democracies, handed down to me by my parents. Then I visited Swden and learned that the Swedes don’t mind high taxes. They have a productive, creative society. They enjoy the services their government delivers. If they wanted to change to our system, they would vote to do so. They don’t want American capitalism.
Yeah and crucially: Two things can be true at the same time. It’s certainly true that the incentive structures built into American-style capitalism go some way (not all the way, but some way) toward explaining why America’s such an innovative place (although I’d note that a lot of the innovations we attribute to capitalism incentive structures are initially born of government research grants). That in no way invalidates the criticism that says the end result is cartoonish inequality.
There’s no free lunch!
If you take that saying literally and are not living in a jungle (hopefully), what do you propose, say for disabled people, unable to work to earn enough income to survive; or an abused spouse left with a number of mouths to care for and feed on her own?
I prefer the Ferrari 512BB “Boxer” myself. Once upon a time, I received a bonus sufficient to buy said Boxer. I did not, even though it would have been a decent investment, until that lovely 12 cylinder needed its first service, which expense you defer by never driving your investment Ferrari. It was a good thing I didn’t, because the next several years were, financially speaking, not as prosperous.
Excellent article sir.
Coincidentally I was reading Gary Stephenson Trading Game this week , a lot in common with the key points from your article.
Hint on the Ferrari , if you cant plug it into a trickle charger every night, your going to get quite frustrated, lovely car otherwise.
You make a lot of sense. We have veered off from the track and it won’t be pretty.
For those of us with some memory will recall that the income tax system used to be quite progressive up till 1981 with top tax rates of 70%. The great republican financial acumen that sold us the false god of trickle down economics dramatically reduced top rates eventually down to 28%. Darn those pesky left wing wacko democrats raising rates to almost 40% during Clinton’s reign of terror. Such horror. The great concern then was that there might not be any 10 year treasuries issued to price mortgages against. How the times have changed.
When the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock before disembarking the body signed the Mayflower compact what was surely a socialist in which the signatories pledged to jointly share their food, care for one another, do those other things that socialists do. Most survived until the somewhat mythical Thanksgiving they celebrated the next year. We’ve always been closet socialists in America. It’s a built-in requirement of a just and civil society. Only the truly committed misanthropes among us are outcasts the outcasts here, people like Trump, Musk, Vance, Bezos, Ellison, and others of their ilk.
In the days of Howdy Doody, there is always a Mr. Bluster!
I am skeptical that Mamdani can provide the ideas/leadership to have any meaningful impact on reducing the income disparity that exists in NYC- based on some of his suggestions; such as halting rent increases on the 1 million, “rent-stabilized”, privately owned apartments (once you qualify, you are in forever- even if your income increases such that you would no longer qualify).
However, admittedly, whatever we are doing now is not working; so if NYC’ers are no better off in 4 years, they will be able to try someone else.
I am in the last half of The Power Broker- so all I can see at this point is existing or the potential for corruption.
A 2% surcharge on individual income over $1 million ( > 20X the median) doesn’t seem like a huge deal to me, especially if it’s used to support a universal public good like mass transit.