
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley says that New York City Assemblyman and Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is not only a socialist but a Marxist, while Vox says that Mamdani is basically a pro-government Democrat who thinks that the government can help citizens with some basic transportation, child care, housing and food needs.
Turley says that Mamdani has said that he favors the government “seizing the means of production,” but he acknowledges that Mamdani does not propose this on his candidate for mayor website.
But Turley argues that Mamdani believes governments in the United States, presumably at the federal as well as state and local level, should seize the means of production.
It is important to distinguish what candidates believe from what policies they promote.
If Mamdani is not proposing that the City of New York seize the means of production — basically take over all business — then it does not make sense to call him a socialist because nationalization of the means of production is the defining feature of socialism.
It is still an interesting and important question if Mamdani thinks that New York City and the country overall should seize the means of production someday. For now, though, it really does not make sense for anyone to insist that Mamdani is a Marxist or for Mamdani himself to say that he is a socialist if none of his policies distinguish him from a progressive Democrat.
The same can be said of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist (as does Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), but he really is not a socialist in any interesting sense of the term either. His views align more with social democracies in the Nordic countries, whose economies have core capitalist components.
The attention given to whether Mamdani is a socialist of some kind is a wake-up call to observers and citizens to look more carefully at questions about political economy and the language that is used by candidates, the media and pundits.
The media, in general, has for decades used cartoon language to identify our economy and the economy of other countries. For one, the nonstop identification of our economy as “capitalist” is a serious oversimplification.
For over one hundred years, the U.S. economy has involved considerable government intervention in the economy itself, starting in the Progressive Era and running through the New Deal Era and the Great Society Era.
There can be no doubt that we have a “mixed economy,” namely a society in which the government plays a major role regulating the economy and redistributing both wealth and income. Yet it is a rare day when a politician or a member of the media says that we have a “mixed economy,” even though middle school students learn about laissez-faire economies, mixed economies and socialist economies.
Calling ourselves capitalists just sets us up in opposition to communist states — of which there are very few in the post-Cold War world. Moreover, it creates the misleading impression that the two main economies in the world are traditional capitalism (which we had in 1890) and Marxist-Stalinist Russia and Maoist China from the 1950s and 1960s.
For years we have needed a debate between advocates of a progressive mixed economy and advocates of a conservative mixed economy. That is what we actually have now. But no one calls it that, and the capitalist and socialist labels generate extremist reactions on both sides.
Even the Big Beautiful Bill is nothing close to a defense of a laissez-faire capitalist economy. The cut to Medicaid is about 10% a year over the course of 10 years — namely $1 trillion. It is nothing close to a cut of the entire program, which would inch us closer to a laissez-faire economy.
With Medicare and Social Security barely touched — and that is about $2.5 trillion of our annual $7 trillion federal budget — the point stands that the Ds and Rs are fighting over what kind of mixed economy to have and not whether to have a socialist economy or a laissez-faire capitalist economy.
Pundits and the media in general and certainly our education system need to work with politicians to get us to a space where we stop using language to distort both the left and the right and, in the process, a reasonable centrist middle position.
The debates we are having today in New York City and around the country are about very important issues, but they are not about fundamentally moving outside of the mixed economy framework.
Dave Anderson (dmamaryland@gmail.com) has taught political philosophy at five colleges and universities, is editor of the interdisciplinary volume “Leveraging,” and ran for Congress as a Democrat in Maryland in 2016.



