A political earthquake is shaking the United States. A self-proclaimed “socialist” of Indian and Muslim origin is on the verge of winning the November election for mayor of the country’s largest and most economically powerful city.
By Federico Dertaube
The news makes a mockery of those who have long been proclaiming the end of all hope in Trump’s world. Now, without acknowledging their repeated failure to be right, they will likely lend uncritical support to the protagonist of New York City’s political earthquake. Zohran Mamdani defeated the Democratic Party establishment’s candidate, Andrew Cuomo, in the June 24 primary to become the nominee for mayor.
Mamdani is of Indian descent, born in Uganda, and is Muslim. His campaign platform was explicitly “socialist.” Everything about him defies the limits that the U.S. imperialist political system has traditionally allowed. In New York, a previously underground political movement that had been taking shape across the United States for some time has now come to light. The only reason people could pretend it didn’t exist was because of the establishment’s power to hide (and crush) it.
Certain interests wanted to frame the profound changes in U.S. politics as merely a rightward shift. This way, Democrats and their mouthpieces at The New York Times could blame trans people for Kamala Harris’s defeat and justify her shameless repetition of Trump’s xenophobic campaign talking points.
Reality, both in the U.S. and globally, is more complex. While parts of the population are indeed shifting toward the far right, mass sectors are also beginning to radicalize toward the left. The international electoral landscape has been increasingly tilting to the right. Many were swayed by this and projected their own demoralization onto the lens through which they view the world. Yes, the far right has been a major protagonist on the global stage, with Trump at the forefront.
And now, no less than New York—the home of Wall Street, the global financial capital—is on the verge of being governed by a “socialist.” Neither the United States nor the world has shifted unilaterally to the right. Instead, they are becoming increasingly polarized, even if there is asymmetry and the far right currently holds the upper hand.
Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary is no ordinary piece of news. The hegemony of “progressivism” in New York has not been seriously challenged by Republicans in a long time. If it were a matter of pure “democracy” (abstracting from the influence of big corporations and the state apparatus on elections), Mamdani could comfortably win the New York mayoralty. But it would be irresponsible on our part to fully place our trust in this emerging figure. It’s worth recalling the spectacular failures of the neo-reformist Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain.
The Underlying Reasons for Polarization in the United States
Last November, in response to Trump’s victory, we said:
“The data is clear: for the majority of U.S. workers, all ‘progress’ has come to a halt. For many, things have gotten worse. And this is due to a combination of factors. First and foremost, the defeats of the labor movement during the ‘neoliberal era.’ It’s no coincidence that wage stagnation coincides with the decline in union membership. Second, U.S. wages now compete more directly with those of the rest of the world. Third, as a consequence of the previous two, jobs were lost in traditionally unionized areas while new ones were created in places ‘untouched’ by organization. Amazon’s massive warehouses (which, in Marxist terms, are ‘industrial’ value-producing jobs) are primarily located in cities and states with little traditional union presence.”
And then:
“The situation of workers in large cities, as we’ve said, is also stagnant or worse than before. But this occurs in the context of overall growth and cultural expansion in those areas. There, despite everything, there seems to be a future. That is not the case for most ‘communities’ in areas not favored by globalization. Not only have their incomes stagnated, but so have their social and economic ties — along with their prospects for the future.”
The vote for Trump was an ultra-reactionary protest vote; the vote for Mamdani is a protest vote that has shifted to the left. With the imperial decline of the United States and the neoliberal era, the popular majorities have lost. In the more culturally backward and economically stagnant areas, the reaction is an attempt to “return” to a lost idealized past. The slogan “MAGA” hits the mark perfectly for those sectors. In the major cities, however, a leftward radicalization has been underway for a long time — especially among the Democratic party base.
A 2018 Gallup poll found that 57% of “progressives” in the U.S. preferred “socialism” over capitalism. Even then, this represented a remarkable ideological shift in the very heart of Cold War anti-communism. None of the promises of the neoliberal era were fulfilled. The “victory over communism” had not left even crumbs for the vast majority. In the U.S., conditions had worsened for workers.
The rise of a figure like Mamdani has been in the making for quite some time. Back in 2018, there was already the surprise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rise, also in New York — a working-class woman of Latin American descent. Both are members of the same organization: the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America. This organization grew rapidly after Trump’s first victory. If ten years ago it had barely 6,000 members, today it claims around 80,000.
The Reasons Behind the Victory: A Grassroots Campaign Appealing to the Working Class
Bernie Sanders was right when he said, “We should not be surprised that a Democratic Party that has abandoned the working class finds that the working class has abandoned it.”
That he was right, however, didn’t stop him from falling in line behind Biden’s failed presidency for four long years.
Trump’s victory left the spokespeople of Biden, Clinton, and Harris stunned. How could the Democrats have lost so many votes among workers, Latinos, and Muslims, despite facing a candidate so openly anti-worker and xenophobic?
Of course, they blamed the people. Americans are racist, they said. Progressives went too far with the ‘trans agenda’, they claimed.
It never occurred to them to say what was actually true: that Biden completely betrayed the hopes sparked in 2020, when he campaigned as the “most progressive president in U.S. history,” when he promised to raise the minimum wage, when he tried to present himself as the candidate of the working class. In the face of disappointment and the rightward shift of the electoral campaign, they themselves chose to shift even further to the right. Harris’s campaign had no economic promises beyond small business loans. What’s more, she devoted herself to echoing Trump’s anti-immigrant slanders, complete with racism and hatred.
We also said in that same November article:
“Pennsylvania was one of the key swing states in the election when it was expected to be closer. Jacobin magazine conducted a poll among the state’s workers that led to a very clear conclusion: proposals based on ‘economic populism’ were far more popular than the campaign focused on ‘defending democracy.’”
The campaign pillars that brought Zohran Mamdani to victory clearly show that the working-class agenda enjoys widespread support. It’s not that the Democratic Party establishment doesn’t understand this — it’s that they are a party of U.S. imperialism and its ruling class. They understand it perfectly — and they choose to fight it. They are enemies of the working class. And part of that fight against the interests of the popular majority is the constant messaging that nothing radical or confrontational toward the capitalist class is possible. The appeal to “realism” is a self-serving lie.
Some of the key points of Mamdani’s campaign were:
- Rent freeze
- Free public bus service
- “Community safety” as an alternative to the repressive power of the police
- Free childcare
- City-owned grocery stores
In addition, the campaign proposed raising the minimum wage and funding social programs by increasing taxes on the ultra-rich and capitalists — the kind who are plentiful on Wall Street. The campaign centered on making it possible for workers to afford living in New York, one of the most expensive cities in the world.
Andrew Cuomo, the establishment candidate backed by the Clintons, was previously the Democratic governor of the state and had to resign in 2021 due to multiple allegations of sexual harassment. His administration represented pure neoliberal continuity and consistent attacks on the working class. Despite full support from the Democratic Party apparatus and funding from billionaires through a super PAC, his defeat is a blow to the entire Democratic establishment.
This isn’t just about the national failure of Biden and Harris — it’s also about the disgraceful administration of the current mayor, Eric Adams. He is running for re-election as an “independent” because he can no longer be the Democratic candidate after becoming embroiled in corruption allegations. Moreover, he chose to align himself with Trump and allowed New York to fall in line with fascist-style policies of illegal immigrant detentions.
In opposition to the establishment machinery, a grassroots campaign stood up, with thousands of volunteers managing to force the system’s arm.
Still, it would be a serious mistake to overlook the history of capitulations by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Being part of the Democratic Party has meant aligning themselves with the party’s apparatus.
A Victory for the Palestinian Cause and the Fight Against Racism
Being Muslim and a political activist in the United States has become a symbol of progressivism. There was already a prominent public figure in the DSA who is the most radical within the entire Democratic Party: Palestinian congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. They aim to present a modern and democratic interpretation of Islam.
It would be sectarian to settle for theological debates in abstract defense of atheism. This phenomenon is a reaction to racism and Islamophobia, which have become defining traits of neo-fascism: Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism. These things aren’t new in the United States—Martin Luther King Jr., after all, was a Christian pastor.
The Democrats have been unconditional allies of the genocide in Gaza. The rejection of what is increasingly and clearly an act of colonial ethnic cleansing—and of a government that is increasingly and clearly fascist, like Netanyahu’s—has finally found a political expression. Unlike the lukewarm responses of AOC and Sanders, Mamdani has clearly denounced the massacre in Gaza as “genocide,” and even ran part of his campaign in Urdu, an Indian language. Not just the campaign, but his very identity is a political statement. And the majority Democratic vote for him is a protest against racism and genocide.
Moreover, Zohran Mamdani made militant resistance to ICE’s anti-immigrant raids a central part of his campaign. His social media videos featured him physically intervening to stop racist detentions. The victory over Cuomo is one of radicalization against Trump’s brutal racism.
The Limits of “Left-Wing Populism”
“Populism” has become a catch-all term in recent years for anything that falls outside the boundaries of “normalcy” and is led by a charismatic figure — whether from the “left” or the “right.”
There are many superficial similarities between Trump and Mamdani. Both won against their party establishments, both succeeded by saying things the political system didn’t want said. But that’s where the similarities end — and they are mostly superficial. Trump is an ultra-reactionary magnate. His program fully aligns with upholding (and worsening) the capitalist order — the order of the ruling class represented by both Democrats and Republicans. In contrast, a program centered on defending the working class and promoting anti-imperialism directly clashes with the core interests of the political establishment and its bosses.
The problem with reformism is that it accepts the existing institutional framework, which means adapting to the rules of the game set by the owners of the world. In this way, reformists resemble the Whig bourgeoisie of 18th-century England, who wanted to assert their interests but still believed the landowning aristocracy was the only one fit to govern.
Right-wing populism, on the other hand, has repeatedly tried to challenge bourgeois democracy, shifting toward more authoritarian regimes, bypassing institutions and their representatives. That’s how — and only how — they’ve managed to impose their agenda internationally. Figures like Trump see themselves as the rulers of society. Reformists, in contrast, position themselves as “employees” of the institutional order. For example, Trump fought and prevailed against attempts to imprison him despite his blatant crimes. Meanwhile, figures like Lula (who is no longer even a reformist) submit to the “justice system” in clearly fabricated cases.
That kind of “moderation” is the first step toward capitulation. Capitalist institutions can only serve the capitalists. And governing solely through them, without breaking beyond their limits, is how parties like Syriza and Podemos ended up becoming normalized capitalist managers. The disappointment with them paved the way for the international rise of the far right. We should not place too much hope in a “democratic socialist” government in New York. But we should believe in the militant power of the working class — anti-racist and anti-imperialist — which has just proven it can become a political force and win a majority under the banner of “socialism.”
