Since Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York Democratic Primary there have been two distinct responses to his victory. One embodied by traditional political voices on both the left and the right; and one that takes a more nuanced or reflective approach.
The traditional voices have been quick to dismiss Mamdani as a simple socialist or communist. With the voices on the right framing him within their archetypal view of left wing youth: out of touch, entitled, naive admirers of collectivist or Marxist ideas.
Yet the more subtle reactions on both the left and right have recognized the truth of Mamdani’s rise. The fact that he represents a new political paradigm shift rather than a decades old caricature. Mamdani's ideas and concepts are definitely rooted in traditional notions of socialism or collectivism. He is after all a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Yet his appeal, and the economic, political, and technological situation he's responding to, represent a paradigm shift that is ongoing.
Negative connotations around socialist ideas are less relevant in a world where younger generations face never-ending economic headwinds, and the coming age of artificial intelligence. Populist redistribution doesn't sound like a bad thing when the top of the American economy continues to reap most of the benefits. And things like free buses, affordable child care, or basic access to healthcare aren't Marxist fantasies when you live paycheck to paycheck - instead they are pragmatic life improvements.
This doesn't mean that Mamdani’s ideas will work, it just means they align with the minds of where many voters are today. Socialism isn't seen as ‘socialism’; it's seen as a remedy to problems that are never fixed - and an adjustment to a society that is failing the middle class on down. The historical and ideological stain on socialist economic policies matters little when large swaths of voters see modern capitalism as having failed to deliver a fair bargain.
The ‘fair bargain’ being that if you play by the rules and work hard, you can have a decent life. A decent life meaning you can afford a modest house, a car, raise a family, and maybe find moments of true happiness. For many in younger generations, this bargain is either long dead, or ceased to exist.
Zohran Mamdani’s campaign addressed this reality directly, which is why he won. And no place embodies the excesses of modern capitalism at the moment more than New York City. This reality; marked by the failures of modern capitalism and the elites and politicians surrounding it, is not limited to New York. It is a country wide problem in America. And it's part of the reason why President Donald Trump was able to be elected to the presidency twice.
It's also why many of Trump's voters would have also supported far left candidate Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. Sanders, like Trump, effectively spoke to the economic situation many voters find themselves in. It didn't matter that Sanders’ ideas were far left, or that Trump's were far right. Each was seen as addressing a reality that most politicians ignored.
The same ‘left’, ‘right’ perplexing overlap can be seen today when right wing commentator Tucker Carlson speaks about the economic issues facing the middle class. In certain instances, Carlson sounds almost like a left wing ideologue. He has even expressed a bit of admiration for Mamdani's candidacy, even though he disagrees with almost all of Mamdani’s proposed solutions.
The point being that there is a general feeling within the American populace that drastic change is needed. This feeling transcends old political ideologies, and old political allegiances. And it largely has to do with the society that modern day capitalism has created.
The problem is not the notion of capitalism itself. The problem is that we've essentialized capitalism as if it is the final economic paradigm that human beings can evolve towards. It can't be argued that traditional capitalism, democracy, and free markets have delivered better economic results than traditional collectivist ideologies. If you track the economic trajectory of countries around the world after World War II, the success of capitalism cannot be denied.
One of the arguments those reflexively opposed to socialist ideas make is that collectivist policies lead to human misery. They correctly cite the main culprit concerning the past failures of grand experiments in collectivist governance: the fact that when power is concentrated within a small group, it tends to be abused. Collectivist governments provide a ready built structure for the worst natured rulers to rise to power. This leads to authoritarianism, decreased individual freedom, and general suffering. Historical examples of this include Joseph Stalin's rule over the Soviet Union, and Mao Zedong’s rule over Communist China.
Yet those who correctly point out the historical failures of collectivism, fail to acknowledge the failures of modern capitalism. Collectivism cements corrupt power at the top of society, but so has capitalism. Collectivism leads to economic inequality, and societal stagnation; but so has modern capitalism. Collectivism leaves large swaths of a population feeling like they don't have a future full of meaning and purpose - but so has modern capitalism.
Of course the failures of collectivism in these instances are much, much greater than those of modern capitalism. For example, The Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961) likely killed around 30 million people. A tragedy whose cause was terrible government collectivist policy. Yet it should be acknowledged that in the relative time of 2025, modern day capitalism has shown its limits. Even though those shortcomings pale in comparison to failings of the past, it doesn't mean the time hasn't come for new economic thinking.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the success and failures of capitalism while also trying to imagine what needs to come next. It's kind of like recognizing that the time has come to move beyond fossil fuel energy sources. We don't have to demonize or essentialize fossil fuel use - it was the best we could do at the time. But we do have to evolve to a higher state of thinking that takes advantage of clean energy and technological progress.
The same could be said for capitalism. It was the best we could do at the time; but the moment has come to try and conceive of something better. ‘Something better’ doesn’t mean a zero sum replacement. Instead, it refers to something that preserves the best parts of capitalism while acknowledging that money cannot serve as society’s organizing principle. Money is just a tool human beings created to allow for peaceful acquisition and exchange of goods. It is better to receive money for an item rather than having that item stolen from you. Just as it is better to know that you can use money to build the life you desire, instead of having to use other primal means.
Yet through the natural progression of human behavior, we have reified money to the point that capitalism has devolved into a version of the thing it was intended to mitigate: a human world determined by our base instincts, and raw power. Every aspect of American life has been reduced to the whims of profit making. This isn’t capitalism’s fault per say; there is no ‘capitalism’ to be found hiding out in some undisclosed location. It is just the natural result of a system human beings created being allowed to run unimpeded to its logical conclusion. Without detached intervention or adjustment, all human systems seem to arrive at varying levels of dysfunction or stagnation.
At some point, especially with the coming age of artificial intelligence and advanced robotics; there will have to be a reckoning towards a new economic paradigm. Otherwise, the age of artificial intelligence will not be one of abundance, but one of mass unemployment and suffering. Companies following the current trajectory of capitalism will seek to maximize profits, not employ human beings out of empathy. This in turn will make a policy like universal basic income look less like socialism and more like a necessity.
And herein lies the point. Would it be such a terrible thing to have a country where most of the labor was done by artificial intelligence or robots, and people were free to pursue lives of true meaning and purpose? Shouldn’t that be the goal for beings capable of technological and intellectual progress? I’m not sure even an arch conservative would argue against the idea that there is more to life than the pursuit of money. Yet this is the reality Americans find themselves in. A society organized not around what makes human life worth living; but structured around something trivial and utilitarian.
This is why Zohran Mamdani has had success. He was able to tap into the feeling many people have that capitalism in its current form has run its course. His support doesn’t necessarily come from some embrace of traditional socialism. It comes from a desire to have a life that is a bit more human. A desire to see a city, and a country, that puts the quality of the lives of its citizens first, and markets second.
In July of 2025, the well known hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan was performing in New York City at Madison Square Garden. Mamdani received an invite to the concert from former New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman. Making his way backstage, Mamdani received warm greetings from fans in attendance, and performers like Run The Jewels, and Jadakiss. Yet it was his interaction with the brains behind the Wu-Tang Clan; RZA, which was most symbolic. RZA engaged Mamdani by saying:
I got friends, they lived in Brownsville (Brooklyn) in the 60’s, but they was able to move out to Long Island - and their life is good. Then you got the people in my generation, like my aunts and uncles - we got stuck. So we probably like ‘let us out!’ - but how do you balance that?
Mamdani responded by saying:
I mean I think a big part of it is to make Brownsville the place that you don’t have to leave to have that same life. There are too many people for whom stability, space - raising a family, you can only do it outside of New York City. The whole campaign we ran on is about how do we make the most expensive city in the United States affordable?
This exchange sums up the whole sociological situation surrounding Mamdani’s rise, and the appeal of traditionally socialist ideas in general. In 2025 America it's not so much about liberal or conservative, or capitalism versus socialism. It’s simply about what people think will make their lives better. The politicians that recognize that, no matter what their political persuasion, will be successful. While the ones that don’t, will increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of the anger from a populace that has had enough.