Pay close attention, comrades!
When many Democrats on Friday voted in favor of a resolution condemning socialism, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani was on his way to what turned out to be a surprisingly cordial meeting with President Donald Trump. Asked about the resolution, Mamdani responded: “I have to be honest with you, I focus very little on resolutions, frankly. I think the focus is on the work at hand. I can tell you I am someone who is a democratic socialist. I’ve been very open about that. I know there might be differences about ideology, but the place of agreement is the work that needs to be done to make New York City affordable. That’s what I look forward to.”Mamdani has indeed been open about being a democratic socialist, and has even affirmed the label in the context of denying that he is a communist. When he won the Democrat primary in late June, President Donald Trump, less friendly than he was during their Friday meeting, called Mamdani “a 100% Communist Lunatic.” Asked if he really was a communist, Mamdani responded emphatically: “No, I am not. I call myself a democratic socialist, in many ways, inspired by the words of [Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.] from decades ago, who said, ‘Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism: There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.’”
Mamdani’s answer, which he has repeated on other occasions as well, actually raised more questions than it answered. The democratic socialist wunderkind invoked Martin Luther King in speaking of the alleged need for a “better distribution of wealth,” but did not explain why the best distribution of wealth isn’t the simple process of someone working, getting fairly compensated for his or her labor, and being able to dispose of that compensation as he or she sees fit. Why must there be government-mandated “distribution” of wealth at all? To talk as if such government action is necessary is to talk like a communist, the very thing Mamdani has repeatedly denied being.
In fact, the program of the Democratic Socialists of America, to which Mamdani belongs, sounds very much like communism. The Democratic Socialists of America denounce capitalism as a “system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit” and proclaim: “We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear.”
Peel away the lofty rhetoric, and that’s a call for collective ownership of “the key economic drivers that dominate our lives,” which in practice has always meant government ownership of the means of production — for which Mamdani himself called in 2020. Democratic socialism, then, and communism are essentially identical. --->READ MORE HERE
History shows us that a government empowered to dictate wages and ownership for “equality” will mutate into control over individual choices.
New York City is celebrating the win of its most defining election in years. On November 4, voters selected their new mayor.Follow link below to a relevant story:Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, surged in popularity — especially among Gen Z — on promises to freeze rent, open government-run grocery stores, eliminate bus fares, and raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour. His victory on Tuesday marks a major political shift in one of the world’s most influential cities — and it could be an ominous sign of where America is headed.
Media coverage right now is focused on whether Mamdani’s policies will actually make life in New York more affordable — and while that’s an important question, it’s not the only one we should be asking. Some — including President Trump — have labeled Mamdani a communist. Mamdani rejects the charge, insisting he’s a democratic socialist and that the two couldn’t be more different. But that raises an even more important question that few people are asking: how different is Mamdani’s “democratic socialism” from the Marxist socialism it claims to distance itself from?
Marx’s Vs Mamdani’s Framework
In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx built his entire system around class conflict. He saw history as a constant struggle between the bourgeoisie — the wealthy owners of factories, land, and capital — and the proletariat, the working class who labored for them. To Marx, the capitalist was the villain: the exploiter of workers and the thief of their labor. His solution was total upheaval: abolish private property, erase class divisions, and replace capitalism with collective ownership managed by the state.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
In other words, Marx believed the working class should use the power of the state to seize control of all production, centralizing it “in the hands of the state” — which he described as the proletariat organized as the ruling class. In theory, this meant the economy would be run “for the people.” In reality, it means the state would run everything — because the state was the people, at least in name.
Cultures that have adopted Marxist principles promise fairness, but in practice, concentrate nearly all power in the hands of government. What begins as a call to liberate workers from oppression ends with individuals stripped of both property and choice.
Mamdani’s version of socialism sounds less radical, but it flows from the same logic. He’s not calling for a violent revolution, nor the complete abolition of private ownership. Instead, he frames the “villain” differently — the greedy billionaire, the corporate landlord, the capitalist system that supposedly makes New York unaffordable. His plan is to make life “fairer” for working-class New Yorkers through rent freezes, government-run grocery stores, and higher minimum wages. But each solution leans on the same idea Marx started with: using government power to fix inequality. None of his proposals limit government power or expand individual liberty — they expand the state’s power in the name of helping the people. It may sound democratic, but the foundation is the same: more control from the top, less freedom for the individual.
What’s the Difference Between Democratic Socialism and Marx’s Socialism? --->READ MORE HERE
+++++After a 40-year hiatus, the Communist Party USA is back on the ballot — and already has three people in office+++++
No comments:
Post a Comment