Politicians like Mamdani are the left wing of capital. Full stop. They’ll give you a whole speech about the failures of capitalism, but their solution is always, always just to put a band-aid on a bullet wound and hope you don’t notice the system is still bleeding you dry. It’s a tale as old as time where they co-opt the energy of the masses, promise change from within, and ultimately do nothing but delay the inevitable crisis.
And Mamdani is just the modern day version of Eduard Bernstein. It’s honestly staggering how this playbook hasn’t changed in over a century. Bernstein was a big deal in the SPD, and he’s the guy who looked at Marx’s revolutionary ideas and said, nah, we can just vote our way into socialism. He threw class conflict out the window and argued we could slowly reform capitalism into something nicer. He successfully turned the SPD from a revolutionary party into a mild appendage of liberalism, trading worker power for wage increases and welfare programs that left the capitalist class firmly in charge. Rosa Luxemburg called this out in Reform or Revolution where she said that his strategy sucks the revolutionary soul right out of the working class.
Sound familiar?
Mamdani is doing the exact same thing. He gives great speeches about the 1% and corporate greed, but his entire project is about social democratic reforms within a capitalist framework. These are good things! But they’re treating the symptoms, not the disease.
The real damage is in channelling what could be a millions-strong grassroots movement directly into the graveyard of the Democratic Party. All that energy, all that hope, are funnelled into meaningless action like phone banking and canvassing for a party that is structurally, irrevocably dedicated to preserving capitalism. Instead of building real, independent power through unions, strikes, and community networks, people got a cult of personality around one candidate.
Reforms under capitalism are always conditional and designed to demobilize the masses. Imagine if all that energy had been directed toward unionizing every Amazon warehouse, organizing mass rent strikes, and building community mutual aid networks that create real dual power. Look at movements like MAS in Bolivia to see what’s possible.
And here’s the kicker, the part that should terrify everyone is that the reformist path actively paves the way for fascism. The SPD’s commitment to playing by the bourgeois rules made them utterly unprepared to confront the Nazis. They prioritized legalistic, parliamentary games over mass mobilization and direct action. They disarmed the working class ideologically and organizationally. And when the Nazis started gaining power, the SPD famously refused to support a general strike or armed resistance, clinging to their faith in a system that was already collapsing. They even allied with the Nazis against the communists in the end.
Now look at the “progressive” squad in the Democratic Party. Same playbook. They use leftist rhetoric to absorb grassroots energy, then funnel it back into a party funded by capital. Their watered-down, incrementalist policies fuel mass disillusionment, which the far-right is all too happy to exploit.
The Democrats’ “pragmatic incrementalism” is just managing the decline. It sustains a system that creates the very misery and despair that a Trump capitalizes on. They are the firewall against real change, and their reforms are designed to prevent any sort of structural change. We’re watching the same historical cycle play out in real time.
TLDR: Reformism is a dead end that disarms the working class and ultimately strengthens the far-right. Mamdani is the modern Bernstein, and the Democratic Party is the new SPD.
Even if Mamdami didn’t believe that, it would still be the smart thing to say. Elections are a popularity competition, there’s no prize for saying the truth; just ask a climate scientist. The point is to change things.
It’s important to get out of the liberalist mindset of thinking electoralism (here and now) should be about honestly stating every policy and correct position. We don’t live in a marketplace of ideas where simply being correct is worth anything. If the bulk of the population isn’t on board with socialism, then an election seat is either useful for milquetoast mild reform or for propaganda platforming (e.g. Sanders making “socialism” a more approachable idea despite Sanders clearly contradicting socialism in many other statements).
No, it wouldn’t be the smart thing. He could have dodged the question, but by affirming the imperialist narrative he supports the Empire’s current aggression on Venezuela, and blocks discussion from mainstream leftist discourse.
You’re right, dodging the question would have been much smarter. I haven’t seen the context but I doubt there’s any need for the mayor of New York to declare a position on these two leaders, and Mamdami has already famously dodged the Zionist Regime visit question in the primaries debate.
Yep, agreed!
A right-wing candidate would never condemn Bolsonaro or Melei or Orban. They’d either praise them or attack their enemies.
That’s the smart thing to say. Whenever they’re cornered by reporters and asked about far right leaders in other countries they never condemn them, because it’s a signal to the base that they’re True Believers and it helps build coalitions across the right.
When are Democrats going to learn from Republicans? This is a winning strategy that the right has mastered. We can do it too.
I agree that the rhetorical technique is smart and one we should learn about.
Although I think there’s a false equivalence there within the mainstream US context, because red scare propaganda wholeheartedly declares Venezuela and Cuba to be undemocratic dictatorships, while Bolsonaro and Melei bare resemblance to Trump themselves by being (seen as) the rightward tip of mainstream electoralism, a little extreme but still still capitalist #democracies.
Sanders has infamously praised Castro and Cuba a few times, I wasn’t really paying attention so I don’t know how well this was received by the Democrat audience. I remember it was a headline controversy back in 2020, but it certainly didn’t ruin Sanders.
As for attacking their enemies… one would have to be very careful attacking America to an audience of mainstream Americans. It’s possible to (in bad faith) frame it as criticizing specific governments (Bush, Trump) instead of imperialism, or even possibly framing it as a problem with capitalism, but given their target audience that’s a tough leap to make in one go - remember that these leaders are seen by most as “authoritarian dictators” and it’s not easy to unravel that much propaganda in a couple of speeches. I don’t know how effective it would be to attack those leaders’ domestic enemies or historical predecessors (see yellow Parenti snippet on Cuba).
If your middle of the road beliefs were correct, he wouldn’t have won the primary.
You centrists are a danger to this country. You create the space for fascism to thrive.
I am a communist. The liberal electoral system is systemically rigged towards the bourgeoisie and it would be ridiculous to approach it in good faith.
If your middle of the road beliefs were correct, he wouldn’t have won the primary.
What do you mean? Mamdami’s primary platform didn’t depart from capitalism as far as I saw. Furthermore, the primary has a different voting audience and calls for different tactics (even if using the same strategy) to improve chances of winning that popularity contest.
Removed by mod
get your fell for it again medals here : 🏅
… yea…
If even Mamdani isn’t good enough for you people then it’s no wonder the Democrats abandoned their left flank.
The Dems have never supported the left, or thrown us a bone. They serve capital, and the electoral process is a great filter to prevent leftist politics from reaching political power.
Dems abandoned the left for money
I’d think that, if not for how all these relatively minor criticisms of Mamdani’s politics have been red lines for people here.
Though I suppose there’s a difference between the “terminally online left” and the trade unions and the progressives. There’s no excuse for throwing out both the trade unions and the progressives, even if there is one for throwing out the terminally online left.
No, actually, rhetorically supporting the case for war against Venezuela is not a “minor criticism”.
The time to criticize them is not when they’re being bombed.
You should think that regardless of whatever experience you’ve had online because it’s verifiably true
There it is lmao, the AOCIA arc begins
Glad he did it before the election.
Still held out some hope he’d be the exception that proved the rule
Same. No idea why he decided to capitulate AFTER winning the primaries. Everyone knows capitulating to Zionists never works.
Ah yes. The most critical of positions for New York City Mayor.
I wonder how long he’s been pressured to publicly express a stance on foreign governments as a candidate.
not surprising, but still disappointing lol
i don’t think that cuba can be considered a dictatorship. not so much about venezuela but that’s none of my business - and for the record, not of the US too.
When Fidel was in charge, it absolutely was a dictatorship. That his brother took over from him is a little clue to that fact. Now I’m less certain. Since the Communist party in Cuba has some actually well meaning people in it, there’s a possibility that with the old guard dead or retired they may cease being a dictatorship.
Dictator is a word the US uses to describe the overwhelmingly popular elected officials who somehow aren’t ousted from office by US-backed candidates and CIA interference/influence campaigns.
I doubt Maduro could ever be that popular with the current state of the Venezuelan economy. And even taking into account the sanctions it’d take incredible incompetence to bring the Venezuelan economy down to it’s current state.
Removed by mod
Cuba and Venezuela are both more democratic than the US Empire, and moreover affirming the US Empire’s narrative on Venezuela while it manufactures consent for terrorizing and killing Venezuelans is the opposite of what a socialist should be doing. By affirming the US Empire’s narrative, Mamdani is providing a block on what is considered “acceptable leftism” in the public discourse.
Venezuela is a shit show politically by any measure and no US Empire whataboutism can change that. It’s possible to call out Maduro and call out the US. Sometimes there is no good guy, just bad guys and worse guys.
Venezuela is a quasi-socialist country attempting to build a real, solid socialist foundation, and has to do so while juggling aggression from the genocidal US Empire. Maduro is popularly supported by the people, and demonized in the west due to being a socialist. There’s no “whataboutism” here, not all comparison is inherently poor logic, no matter how much anti-socialists protest.
Additionally, talking about “good guys” and “bad guys” is just Marvel-logic, the world doesn’t run on metaphysical ideals of good and evil, and trying to describe situations as such without careful materialist contextualization just blunts any actual discussion.
Cuba is more democratic than the US? By what metric? It has been a one party state since 1959.
Edit: Just read a little history and shame on the US for trying to turn entire nations and their peoples into their vassals. Colonialism never ended, it just got rebranded and communism/socialism has been the only way for people to take power back, particularly when the (predominantly Western) gaze of extractionary greed, dehumanization and exploitation is upon them.
Cuba is comprehensively democratic, but it’s not a multiparty liberal democracy. Instead, it’s a unitary socialist democracy, where people have more of a direct impact on policy. One of the ways that capitalism impedes the democratic process is by making it about competing parties, not about policy. Here’s an example from Cuban state media.
It seems like ordinary citizens can nominate local delegates that are then screened by a commission run by the party. The elected (party approved) delegates then vote on policy. This system can certainly give an illusion of democracy but ultimately the party is curating all political discourse by only allowing for party approved delegates to become electable in addition to exerting absolute control over local media.
In more ideal circumstances, delegates would not be screened for party loyalty, such that if other (less ruling party favorable) perspectives became popular, a new coalition could eventually accumulate the political power to form an opposition party to the ruling one.
In other words, I think we should be skeptical towards the notion that a one party state can be ‘democratic’.
Lmao this is just chauvinism. What gives you the right to decide or criticize the path of nations that have been under siege by US imperialism?
The PCC isn’t a shadowy cabal running Cuba from the shadows, it’s a mass worker org, with about 5% of the total population in it. As a socialist system, it needs to defend against outside influence, and of course a socialist system is going to limit capitalist press. It’s ultimately a people-driven political system that surpasses bourgeois multiparty systems.
They are under constant aggression and embargoes from the genocidal US Empire, you have no leg to stand on.
Removed by mod
All you need is a bogeyman.
The US bombed civilians from the sky for decades, tried to murder their head of state hundreds of times, sponsored mercenary invasions and to this day maintains a military blockade of supplies to the island.
At what point does material reality fit into your assessments?
You are completely in your mind palace spinning yarns about the outside world that only sound reasonable with zero context.
Anyone trying to push their viewpoint is propaganda, yes. Propaganda doesn’t mean its wrong, climate activists are propagandists for a good cause, with good information.
Either way, you’re comically wrong. Socialist countries like Cuba have far lower wealth disparity, and have better metrics when compared to capitalist peer countries. Cuba in particular has higher life expectancy than the US, even, thanks to comprehensive medical care based on prevention over profit. The socialist system increased life expectancy by a third, and over tripled literacy rates post-revolution. The people overwhelmingly support the system, and correctly blame the US Empire’s blockade on them having to pay the highest import fees of any country due to shipping costs, when they could just get goods from Florida without a blockade.
You equate the systemic brutality and plunder of capitalism with the necessary defenses a worker-run system maintains. You claim you’re used to capitalist propaganda, which is true, but you parrot it anyways when it comes to Cuba. The Cuban people replaced the fascist slaver colony under Batista with a socialist system run by and for the people. The US Empire was initially on hesitent terms, until Castro implemented land reform, giving the peasants the land the slavers held beforehand and nationalizing businesses. Then, the US Empire launched terrorist attacks like the Bay of Pigs.
When you just parrot claims equating socialist systems with capitalist ones in terms of how they serve the people, you just show ignorance on the subject matter. I urge you to actually read up on Cuba, which has an extremely positive reputation internationally outside of western, imperialist countries trying to turn it back into a sugar colony. Even western media reports on how Fidel Castro is a heroic figure in the global south. Don’t pretend the international community all agrees with US Imperial propaganda.
