Further, I would ASK him if he supports Russia over Ukraine. I don't think you'll find that to be so. Why look at the national platform when you can seek the personal positions of a candidate, and now nominee.
I’m a realist that demands actual support for Ukraine. Not just in words but in actions too. Saying you support Ukraine is not enough. He needs to fully understand the conflict and the context in which it’s being waged. He does not, and if he did, he’d be singing a very different tune about Iran and Israel right now.
You know who else claims to support Ukraine but doesn’t put action behind it? Donald J Trump. And sadly, his strikes on Iran make him even stronger in his Ukrainian stance than Mamdani.
“ Further, I would ASK him if he supports Russia over Ukraine.”
Hmmmm COMRADE Weinstein, how is either Russia of Ukraine relevant to the functions and responsibilities of the Mayor of NYC? Why is a mayor’s thoughts on the conflict relevant to the homeless of or assaulted in the NYC?
It’s even worse like asking a butthole doctor about his position on cataract. 🤡
And Democratic Socialism - that which everyone from former Mayor Dinkers to Warren to Sanders to AOC practices -- isn't the same thing as the socialism which you fear.
“ And Democratic Socialism - that which everyone from former Mayor Dinkers to Warren to Sanders to AOC practices -- isn't the same thing as the socialism which you fear.”
You really think so, COMRADE Weinstein? In some respect you are correct, Maoism was not the same as Stalinism, “we” feared. Neither was Social Democrat Worker’s Party of Germany. Of regimes of Pol Pot or Ortega …
The results though were stunningly similar.
Left is left is left - siblings-brothers, the most MURDEROUS movement in history bar none.
Tell me you have zero clue about Social Democracy without telling me you have zero clue.
There's a world of difference between *reformatory Socialism* and *revolutionary Communism*, both theoretical and practical, and a long history of bitter enmity between the two. (The TL;DR is the former want to save Capitalism from itself while the latter want it to run its course to proletarian revolution and the supposed inevitable post-scarcity workers' utopia, and duly resent the reformists for trying to cockblock that teleology.)
Tell me you didn't understand a single thing I wrote without twlling me.
You're persisting in the most transparently bullshit right-wing propaganda of tendentiously lumping moderate reformers with militant extremists, never you mind now that the two groups could never stand each other.
By that rationale your own vehement opposition to anything labeled "socialist" makes you a card-carrying Nazi so, like, yeah.
"You're persisting in the most transparently bullshit right-wing propaganda of tendentiously lumping moderate reformers with militant extremists, never you mind now that the two groups could never stand each other."
Yes, I am a Liberal, who is persisting in the right-wing propaganda. Alternatively, I am one of millions who lived the EVIL "heaven," which you are pushing and lost family members to your EVIL MURDEROUS ideas/human experiments. Do experiment on yourself and your own family, genius!
Do define Nazi. Then define left, right ...
Then THINK, if you can, COMRADE, genius supporter of "moderate reformers."
You're welcome to look up "Nazism" on eg. Wikipedia yourself, not the fucking point you numbnut Cold War broken record.
Meanwhile feel free to enumerate the *tyrannical atrocities* conducted over the years by Social Democrat and moderate Socialist governments in say France, Italy, Germany, the Nordic countries... go on, I'll wait. 😗
Thanks for responding to some of the criticisms- here's one I'm hoping to hear your thoughts on:
Humanitarian movements are often exploited and perverted from the inside by not so well-meaning actors, who seek to exploit the humanitarian impulse of those around them for their own fantasies of power and ideological doctrine.
But this should not change the underlying humanitarian value of these movements. As a Jew, I continue to believe in the liberal and secular zionist vision, even though it is currently being destroyed and crushed from the inside by Netanyahu and his cronies.
In a similar vein, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to usurp the very real and justified humanitarian struggle against the Tsar, which could have succeeded in 1905. But this does not and should not indict the underlying value of that anti-autocratic and, yes, democratic socialist, movement.
I think we have got to learn from history without letting it paralyze us, making us cold and callous from previous failure.
America is world's better than the absurdity of Soviet Russia, but it would feel innappropriate to go up to one of the many homeless people all around where I live and tell them that. So what? People still suffer here, and they suffer because of an unfair system of wealth exploitation that ought to be regulated.
Mamdani calls himself a socialist and he is a part of the DSA (of whose members I have had less than positive interactions with) but at the end of day his platform is of that humanitarian method of piecemeal reform described in the previous paragraph, and I want to give it a chance.
My Lebanese friend once told me how Christian Bekaa Valley turned Muslim by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah turned one day and offered poor large family inhabitants in Bekaa Valley any health-related assistant they may need FREE of charge. On the other side, Hezbollah offered doctors double of what doctors asked, to do Hezbollah's bidding, serve or don't whoever Hezbollah told ...
After a while, Hezbollah asked men in the Valley a small favor, that their wives begin wearing Burkas ... then another small favor ... you get the gist, right?
Baby step-by-baby step Iran supported militant group became a major player in politics. The rest is history.
A good example- in this case Hezbollah is exploiting the economic and health conditions of a people for their own power. This does not mean, however, that we should be opposed to any effort to improve anyone's lives, because of possible ulterior motives. Suspicious, sure, but not complete blanket opposition because of past examples of exploitation and bad faith.
And I don't mean "humanitarian" in the way of wealthy out of touch westerners going around building useless wells for Africans- I mean the true sense of the word, that of seeking to work together as humans to lift up those at the bottom, through democratic institutiosn like democratic socialism as opposed to benevolent individuals like wealthy philanthropists.
Garry, have you ever read the Preamble of our Constitution? It is the Spirit of our democracy. It is what we have strived to maintain and expand upon for 250 years. It is all about caring for each other.
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”
Taking care of each other is not socialism, it’s a working democracy.
The meaning of "promote the general welfare" has been badly distorted by the socialists. That line has been twisted into a pretzel to demand stupid things, like everyone must get a vaccine to protect our "social contract." Nowhere in our constitution is there a line about caring for each other, but most of us do help our fellow citizens without the cattle prod from socialists. For those not so inclined, that is their choice, and I don't begrudge that choice.
The Constitution is a moral document. The Spirit of those morals, the principles it embodies, spring from the hearts and minds of men who cared about the well-being of their fellow men, as well as future generations.
Your comment, “Nowhere in our constitution is there a line about caring for each other”, would be like saying nowhere on our 1099’s does it say, pay your taxes because we care about a functioning society, we care about the welfare and wellbeing of all Americans, even though that is exactly why we pay taxes.
The line from our constitution is "Provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," as differentiated from "welfare" for individuals as shown in our overburdened social safety nets, many of which are in direct conflict with the general welfare of the United States. I agree the founders cared about the well-being of their fellow men and future generations, but government "welfare" as the term is used and implemented today is in direct conflict with those values. We pay taxes to pay for the common defense, roads and a few other non-morally attached items, but the list of ever-growing projects is sinking us. I don't want to be taxed to pay for a park or something else on the other side of the US. That only breeds winners and losers and resentment, as now I have less to spend on helping my community. Yours is also a cynical view of your fellow man, seeming to believe the only way for people in need to get assistance is by the government forcefully taking from others. My experience is that most people will help others in need but the one in need must be willing to use that assistance to get on their feet.
I think a lot about how my friend, a young business owner on my street in Queens, wanted to start an unofficial association of neighborhood retailers. His idea was that all the business owners could vent, tackle challenges (parking, trash pickup), and promote each other’s shops.
All the business owners, mostly immigrants, loved the idea but refused to join because my friend called it the S___ Collective. They accused him of spreading socialist propaganda and of being an idiot. My friend was shocked. He thought “Collective” meant bike lanes and community events
As a Finn imma call "disingenious BS" on that bit about "US underwriting security" excuse in the context of European welfare states in general and the Nordic ones in particular, given that until the USSR went titsup well nogh *everyone* was budgeting with the possibility of suddenly becoming the frontline battleground of WW3 in mind. It was only *after* that that BOTH DEFENCE SPENDING AND WELFARE STATES started getting axed all around the place in the spirit of neolib end-of-history triumphalism.
And us Nordics? Literally half of the lot - us Finns and Sweden - weren't even in the NATO until Putin went off the deep end a few years ago, so. And we Finns never got complacent enough about our large onetime overlord to the East to let our readiness lapse in the first place (the Swedes, our onetime overlords in the other direction, are still recovering from their disastrous experiment with transitioning to a purely professional military).
I feel like I should add that for the entirety of the Cold War Finland was basically a glorified Soviet vassal state. Hell back in the day we literally had to check with Moscow when we wanted to get missiles for our tiny navy due to the various armaments restrictions in the '47 Paris peace treaty (they were OK with that btw as they preferred us as a *credible* buffer state)...
I think that Mamdani is proposing solutions to peoples problems. They might not be optimal solutions, or the closely studied but seldom implemented solutions of technocratic Democratic policy wonks, but they are solutions that connected with enough voters to put him over the top in the context of this election. Also, point of fact, Mamdani cannot implement the 19th Five-Year plan, 2026-2030 from the mayors office of NYC.
That should be a point of reflection for the Democratic Party leadership. But there has not been any reflection as to why DSA Mamdani beat other candidates, not just Cuomo, but other more experienced Democratic party politicians. Instead they have reflexively denounced Mamdani. We will have to see what happens. Mamdani might not win. The Democratic Party leadership might encourage brave centrists like yourself might throw your vote behind incumbent Eric Adams. Who knows what will happen.
One thing the left wing of the Democratic Party has been told ad nauseam since the Clinton Administration is that they must hang together with the rest of the Democratic Party, even when conservatives or right wing candidates like Joe Manchin and Kristin Sinema win and vote against the party. The left of the democratic base has been told that protesting is a waste of time, or counter productive, that they need to be running for local office, building experience, etc. which is actually sound advice. But above all when progressive candidates lose in primaries, they have to shut up and unify behind the nominee. Again this is not unreasonable. While I don't think the "uncommitted" ballot cost Kamal Harris the 2024 election, it was certainly a bad look for the Pro-Palestinian activists, and it does not make me think we should take them into account when it comes to Democratic party policies and the platform.
But here is the thing, the same people who dispensed that wisdom, your Chuck Schumers Kirstin Gillibrands, and Gary Kasparovs, are now bad mouthing Mamdani for taking their advice! He ran for local elections and won (state assembly and NYC mayor's primary). For decades -- going back to Clinton and Carville -- left wing voters have supported the centrist nominees for local, state, and national office. But now the same centrists are trash talking Mamdani, talking about supporting Eric Adams, and failing to unify behind the Party's presumptive nominee. Complain all you want, shit stalk Mamdani, and make memes showing him as Bukharin or Trotsky or whoever (I'm sure there are some unironic memes out there like that already, you can just find them and repost them).
But voters on the left wind of the Democratic Party see what you are doing. We here what the brave centrist truth tellers are saying. It is clear that you support the status quo if a turn to the left cuts down on your own power and influence. Don't be surprised to see the left leave you are some point further down the road. I am sure the rump Democratic Party will find a way to linger on as part of the Popular Front MAGA government after 2026.
I agree with almost everything you wrote, except that I don’t think that it’s fair to lump Schumer and Gillibrand with Kasparov.
Kasparov has a track record of acting on his principles despite how that would affect his personal power and status.
Schumer and Gillibrand’s attacks on Mamdani seem part of their attempts to keep power in the Democratic Party in their left center lane in addition to some fear that Mamdani’s politics will hurt Democrats in purple districts and states.
Mamdani is harmless. There’s some sleight of hand where his actual stated positions are ignored in favor of guilt by association with the DSA (which does indeed say some silly things).
What the actual Mamdani promises is… pretty standard fare. Rent control, which we know is bad because it’s been tried a whole lot. Free buses, which are a solution looking for a problem. One city run grocery store per borough (a silly idea, to be sure, but also a very low stakes one when it inevitably fails to get off the ground). And a few good ideas sprinkled in, like universal child care.
It all reminds me of… Bill DeBlasio, who spent his mayorship flag waving national issues that the mayor of New York has nothing to do with and failing to get snow plows out on roads in the winter. But Bill DeBlasio didn’t destroy New York, and Zohran Mamdani won’t either. The real issue is that the establishment/centrist wing of the party trots out incompetent sex pests and corrupt clowns. My policy instincts tend toward the center left. But that gets overridden when the choices offered are both incompetent and morally offensive. It shouldn’t be that hard to find someone who isn’t a sex offender or a bribe taker to run for mayor. If and when they do, they’ll have my vote (or they would if I still lived in New York).
"When the far-left wins, they are keen to spin it as conclusive evidence that theirs is the only way. When they lose, they’re suspiciously quiet—or they start to point fingers." You mean, they blame the Jews (in the form of AIPAC).
About impeachment, it’s a political process that has nothing to do with right or wrong. So as long as the house and the senate are under republican control, Trump is not going to be convinced for anything. A handful perhaps push back maybe a little bit, but once the rubber hits the road they’ll all fall in line. For exhibit A) see the confirmations of all the incompetent and corrupt members of the cabinet. So wait with any impeachment until you know you ca actually win. Again, it’s a political process, not a judicial one.
With regards to Mamdani, he is what I’m hoping for is the future of this country. Let’s not pretend what he represents has anything to do with Soviet-style socialism. Let’s not conflate the terms. There are many degrees in the left spectrum.
The truth is that for ordinary Americans life keeps getting harder, not better, and the reason is the increasing wealth inequality. The rich are sucking the middle class dry. And the money in politics makes it happen.
Trump recognized and homed in prices being too high, and that’s why he won. People voted with their wallets, and I can’t blame them. Unfortunately they also didn’t realize or remembered that he is a snake oil salesman who is doing nothing to seriously improve the situations of ordinary people. He’s interested in enriching himself and his friends himself, and playing king and have his ring kissed.
My hope is that Mamdani manages to normalize his narrative from “radical-left-wing lunatic speak “to “yes, that actually makes sense, his proposals are not just a pipe dream, but they can be paid for if we do x, y and z.” And he gets there not because of big money, but because there’s more of us than there are of them. And then this template is applied and works, so help us God, in the midterms and in 2028.
I read that piece twice and I’m still not sure what your criticism is. Further, I’m not sure that you’re sure what your criticism is, beyond a fear-based reaction of the word “socialism.”
The article links Mamdani with Eastern Bloc forms of socialism because he aligns with the DSA. As proof you offer the DSA’s beliefs that the Russian invasion of Ukraine hurts worker rights and that Russia needs to withdraw under ceasefire. The second piece you offered is a very logical belief that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself. My disagreements with the leadership aside, there are 92 million citizens who live there and have a right to life. Their country has a right to defend them from attacks, just like America has a right to defend us. Iran has no obligation to sit for being attacked simply because the attackers are self-professed “good guys.” Don’t start war if you don’t want war. Right? Goes for Iran, too, btw.
Are you trying to say that Mamdani’s platforms aren’t the only popular ones and there are more? Are you trying to suggest the working class populism policies that won Trump the Whitehouse in ‘24 are broader and the young’uns who are rabid for Mamdani need to temper their fervor?
Because, honestly, this just reads like more “anything that says socialism is bad because some people who called themselves socialists were bad. Trust me bro” stuff you’d find on a million Facebook posts.
Aye. I'm having a hard time escaping the nagging suspicion that Garry's personal history is prompting him to engage in some rather unseemly and poorly thought out knee-jerking here.
The late Senator Paul Wellstone used to say, “we all do better when we all do better”. So I agree that a combination of social safety nets, prudent regulations, and good business are cornerstones that work. The bottom line is Democrats need high-quality candidates who are relatable, authentic and can articulate solid positions, and take question after question after question competently (a flaw with Harris). And yes please, be under 60. At this point, any label except fascist will do.
As a survivor and extremely lucky escapee from the totalitarian tyrannical regime of the Soviet Union I can confidently add that socialism, and here I am not discussing the Western social democratic ideas, inevitably leads either into national-socialism also known as fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship, just like Marx predicted. So pick as you like...
The main characteristics of socialism is not the free services but rather the relationship with a private property. Socialism does not allow the private enterprise and ownership, placing all means of production in the hands of government. It is rather frustrating to notice when any attempt to provide free services are immediately labeled as "socialism" = BAD! Mamdani is no Socialist which does not make him any more likable (to me:))
Further, I would ASK him if he supports Russia over Ukraine. I don't think you'll find that to be so. Why look at the national platform when you can seek the personal positions of a candidate, and now nominee.
I’m a realist that demands actual support for Ukraine. Not just in words but in actions too. Saying you support Ukraine is not enough. He needs to fully understand the conflict and the context in which it’s being waged. He does not, and if he did, he’d be singing a very different tune about Iran and Israel right now.
You know who else claims to support Ukraine but doesn’t put action behind it? Donald J Trump. And sadly, his strikes on Iran make him even stronger in his Ukrainian stance than Mamdani.
“ Further, I would ASK him if he supports Russia over Ukraine.”
Hmmmm COMRADE Weinstein, how is either Russia of Ukraine relevant to the functions and responsibilities of the Mayor of NYC? Why is a mayor’s thoughts on the conflict relevant to the homeless of or assaulted in the NYC?
It’s even worse like asking a butthole doctor about his position on cataract. 🤡
It's the entire point of Kasparov's column. Did you even read it?
You might be right, but you're attacking the messenger -- not the author who is RIGHT HERE.
If “ It's the entire point of Kasparov's column,” then why do you write: “I would ASK him if he supports Russia over Ukraine”?
To be clear, why do you need to ask what the whole column is about?
Even if this is what the column is about, it does not lessen the irrelevance of the issue.
Americans should learn the differences between socialism and social democracy.
https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/what-is-modern-scandinavian-socialism
https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/corporate-democracy-in-norway
It's no mirage.
And Democratic Socialism - that which everyone from former Mayor Dinkers to Warren to Sanders to AOC practices -- isn't the same thing as the socialism which you fear.
You're better than this, Garry.
“ And Democratic Socialism - that which everyone from former Mayor Dinkers to Warren to Sanders to AOC practices -- isn't the same thing as the socialism which you fear.”
You really think so, COMRADE Weinstein? In some respect you are correct, Maoism was not the same as Stalinism, “we” feared. Neither was Social Democrat Worker’s Party of Germany. Of regimes of Pol Pot or Ortega …
The results though were stunningly similar.
Left is left is left - siblings-brothers, the most MURDEROUS movement in history bar none.
Tell me you have zero clue about Social Democracy without telling me you have zero clue.
There's a world of difference between *reformatory Socialism* and *revolutionary Communism*, both theoretical and practical, and a long history of bitter enmity between the two. (The TL;DR is the former want to save Capitalism from itself while the latter want it to run its course to proletarian revolution and the supposed inevitable post-scarcity workers' utopia, and duly resent the reformists for trying to cockblock that teleology.)
Funny., COMRADE
You did not understand what I wrote. I was talking about both leftists you described as parts of the same MURDEROUS leftist movement.
MURDEROUS leftists us the key 💪
Tell me you didn't understand a single thing I wrote without twlling me.
You're persisting in the most transparently bullshit right-wing propaganda of tendentiously lumping moderate reformers with militant extremists, never you mind now that the two groups could never stand each other.
By that rationale your own vehement opposition to anything labeled "socialist" makes you a card-carrying Nazi so, like, yeah.
Hahahahahahaha Raaaaight. card-carrying Nazi, hah, COMRADE?
"You're persisting in the most transparently bullshit right-wing propaganda of tendentiously lumping moderate reformers with militant extremists, never you mind now that the two groups could never stand each other."
Yes, I am a Liberal, who is persisting in the right-wing propaganda. Alternatively, I am one of millions who lived the EVIL "heaven," which you are pushing and lost family members to your EVIL MURDEROUS ideas/human experiments. Do experiment on yourself and your own family, genius!
Do define Nazi. Then define left, right ...
Then THINK, if you can, COMRADE, genius supporter of "moderate reformers."
You're welcome to look up "Nazism" on eg. Wikipedia yourself, not the fucking point you numbnut Cold War broken record.
Meanwhile feel free to enumerate the *tyrannical atrocities* conducted over the years by Social Democrat and moderate Socialist governments in say France, Italy, Germany, the Nordic countries... go on, I'll wait. 😗
Hello Mr. Kasparov,
Thanks for responding to some of the criticisms- here's one I'm hoping to hear your thoughts on:
Humanitarian movements are often exploited and perverted from the inside by not so well-meaning actors, who seek to exploit the humanitarian impulse of those around them for their own fantasies of power and ideological doctrine.
But this should not change the underlying humanitarian value of these movements. As a Jew, I continue to believe in the liberal and secular zionist vision, even though it is currently being destroyed and crushed from the inside by Netanyahu and his cronies.
In a similar vein, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to usurp the very real and justified humanitarian struggle against the Tsar, which could have succeeded in 1905. But this does not and should not indict the underlying value of that anti-autocratic and, yes, democratic socialist, movement.
I think we have got to learn from history without letting it paralyze us, making us cold and callous from previous failure.
America is world's better than the absurdity of Soviet Russia, but it would feel innappropriate to go up to one of the many homeless people all around where I live and tell them that. So what? People still suffer here, and they suffer because of an unfair system of wealth exploitation that ought to be regulated.
Mamdani calls himself a socialist and he is a part of the DSA (of whose members I have had less than positive interactions with) but at the end of day his platform is of that humanitarian method of piecemeal reform described in the previous paragraph, and I want to give it a chance.
Humanitarian method ...
My Lebanese friend once told me how Christian Bekaa Valley turned Muslim by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah turned one day and offered poor large family inhabitants in Bekaa Valley any health-related assistant they may need FREE of charge. On the other side, Hezbollah offered doctors double of what doctors asked, to do Hezbollah's bidding, serve or don't whoever Hezbollah told ...
After a while, Hezbollah asked men in the Valley a small favor, that their wives begin wearing Burkas ... then another small favor ... you get the gist, right?
Baby step-by-baby step Iran supported militant group became a major player in politics. The rest is history.
Humanitarian method.
A good example- in this case Hezbollah is exploiting the economic and health conditions of a people for their own power. This does not mean, however, that we should be opposed to any effort to improve anyone's lives, because of possible ulterior motives. Suspicious, sure, but not complete blanket opposition because of past examples of exploitation and bad faith.
And I don't mean "humanitarian" in the way of wealthy out of touch westerners going around building useless wells for Africans- I mean the true sense of the word, that of seeking to work together as humans to lift up those at the bottom, through democratic institutiosn like democratic socialism as opposed to benevolent individuals like wealthy philanthropists.
Garry, have you ever read the Preamble of our Constitution? It is the Spirit of our democracy. It is what we have strived to maintain and expand upon for 250 years. It is all about caring for each other.
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”
Taking care of each other is not socialism, it’s a working democracy.
“ Garry, have you ever read the Preamble of our Constitution? It is the Spirit of our democracy.”
Hmmm you meant to say “the Spirit of our Republic,” right COMRADE?
I think you misinterpret meaning of Welfare as being your brother’s, -and yes, sister’s -, keeper.
Federalist Papers clearly explained the meaning is the Constitution. It’s NOT mean what you want us to think it means. 😉🫶🏻🕊
I’m nobody’s comrade.
The meaning of "promote the general welfare" has been badly distorted by the socialists. That line has been twisted into a pretzel to demand stupid things, like everyone must get a vaccine to protect our "social contract." Nowhere in our constitution is there a line about caring for each other, but most of us do help our fellow citizens without the cattle prod from socialists. For those not so inclined, that is their choice, and I don't begrudge that choice.
The Constitution is a moral document. The Spirit of those morals, the principles it embodies, spring from the hearts and minds of men who cared about the well-being of their fellow men, as well as future generations.
Your comment, “Nowhere in our constitution is there a line about caring for each other”, would be like saying nowhere on our 1099’s does it say, pay your taxes because we care about a functioning society, we care about the welfare and wellbeing of all Americans, even though that is exactly why we pay taxes.
The line from our constitution is "Provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," as differentiated from "welfare" for individuals as shown in our overburdened social safety nets, many of which are in direct conflict with the general welfare of the United States. I agree the founders cared about the well-being of their fellow men and future generations, but government "welfare" as the term is used and implemented today is in direct conflict with those values. We pay taxes to pay for the common defense, roads and a few other non-morally attached items, but the list of ever-growing projects is sinking us. I don't want to be taxed to pay for a park or something else on the other side of the US. That only breeds winners and losers and resentment, as now I have less to spend on helping my community. Yours is also a cynical view of your fellow man, seeming to believe the only way for people in need to get assistance is by the government forcefully taking from others. My experience is that most people will help others in need but the one in need must be willing to use that assistance to get on their feet.
I think a lot about how my friend, a young business owner on my street in Queens, wanted to start an unofficial association of neighborhood retailers. His idea was that all the business owners could vent, tackle challenges (parking, trash pickup), and promote each other’s shops.
All the business owners, mostly immigrants, loved the idea but refused to join because my friend called it the S___ Collective. They accused him of spreading socialist propaganda and of being an idiot. My friend was shocked. He thought “Collective” meant bike lanes and community events
Curious, COMRADE, what did your friend think “S___” meant? 😁
Ha, I just didn’t want to mention the name of my street in Queens :)
😊
As a Finn imma call "disingenious BS" on that bit about "US underwriting security" excuse in the context of European welfare states in general and the Nordic ones in particular, given that until the USSR went titsup well nogh *everyone* was budgeting with the possibility of suddenly becoming the frontline battleground of WW3 in mind. It was only *after* that that BOTH DEFENCE SPENDING AND WELFARE STATES started getting axed all around the place in the spirit of neolib end-of-history triumphalism.
And us Nordics? Literally half of the lot - us Finns and Sweden - weren't even in the NATO until Putin went off the deep end a few years ago, so. And we Finns never got complacent enough about our large onetime overlord to the East to let our readiness lapse in the first place (the Swedes, our onetime overlords in the other direction, are still recovering from their disastrous experiment with transitioning to a purely professional military).
I feel like I should add that for the entirety of the Cold War Finland was basically a glorified Soviet vassal state. Hell back in the day we literally had to check with Moscow when we wanted to get missiles for our tiny navy due to the various armaments restrictions in the '47 Paris peace treaty (they were OK with that btw as they preferred us as a *credible* buffer state)...
I think that Mamdani is proposing solutions to peoples problems. They might not be optimal solutions, or the closely studied but seldom implemented solutions of technocratic Democratic policy wonks, but they are solutions that connected with enough voters to put him over the top in the context of this election. Also, point of fact, Mamdani cannot implement the 19th Five-Year plan, 2026-2030 from the mayors office of NYC.
That should be a point of reflection for the Democratic Party leadership. But there has not been any reflection as to why DSA Mamdani beat other candidates, not just Cuomo, but other more experienced Democratic party politicians. Instead they have reflexively denounced Mamdani. We will have to see what happens. Mamdani might not win. The Democratic Party leadership might encourage brave centrists like yourself might throw your vote behind incumbent Eric Adams. Who knows what will happen.
One thing the left wing of the Democratic Party has been told ad nauseam since the Clinton Administration is that they must hang together with the rest of the Democratic Party, even when conservatives or right wing candidates like Joe Manchin and Kristin Sinema win and vote against the party. The left of the democratic base has been told that protesting is a waste of time, or counter productive, that they need to be running for local office, building experience, etc. which is actually sound advice. But above all when progressive candidates lose in primaries, they have to shut up and unify behind the nominee. Again this is not unreasonable. While I don't think the "uncommitted" ballot cost Kamal Harris the 2024 election, it was certainly a bad look for the Pro-Palestinian activists, and it does not make me think we should take them into account when it comes to Democratic party policies and the platform.
But here is the thing, the same people who dispensed that wisdom, your Chuck Schumers Kirstin Gillibrands, and Gary Kasparovs, are now bad mouthing Mamdani for taking their advice! He ran for local elections and won (state assembly and NYC mayor's primary). For decades -- going back to Clinton and Carville -- left wing voters have supported the centrist nominees for local, state, and national office. But now the same centrists are trash talking Mamdani, talking about supporting Eric Adams, and failing to unify behind the Party's presumptive nominee. Complain all you want, shit stalk Mamdani, and make memes showing him as Bukharin or Trotsky or whoever (I'm sure there are some unironic memes out there like that already, you can just find them and repost them).
But voters on the left wind of the Democratic Party see what you are doing. We here what the brave centrist truth tellers are saying. It is clear that you support the status quo if a turn to the left cuts down on your own power and influence. Don't be surprised to see the left leave you are some point further down the road. I am sure the rump Democratic Party will find a way to linger on as part of the Popular Front MAGA government after 2026.
I agree with almost everything you wrote, except that I don’t think that it’s fair to lump Schumer and Gillibrand with Kasparov.
Kasparov has a track record of acting on his principles despite how that would affect his personal power and status.
Schumer and Gillibrand’s attacks on Mamdani seem part of their attempts to keep power in the Democratic Party in their left center lane in addition to some fear that Mamdani’s politics will hurt Democrats in purple districts and states.
Mamdani is harmless. There’s some sleight of hand where his actual stated positions are ignored in favor of guilt by association with the DSA (which does indeed say some silly things).
What the actual Mamdani promises is… pretty standard fare. Rent control, which we know is bad because it’s been tried a whole lot. Free buses, which are a solution looking for a problem. One city run grocery store per borough (a silly idea, to be sure, but also a very low stakes one when it inevitably fails to get off the ground). And a few good ideas sprinkled in, like universal child care.
It all reminds me of… Bill DeBlasio, who spent his mayorship flag waving national issues that the mayor of New York has nothing to do with and failing to get snow plows out on roads in the winter. But Bill DeBlasio didn’t destroy New York, and Zohran Mamdani won’t either. The real issue is that the establishment/centrist wing of the party trots out incompetent sex pests and corrupt clowns. My policy instincts tend toward the center left. But that gets overridden when the choices offered are both incompetent and morally offensive. It shouldn’t be that hard to find someone who isn’t a sex offender or a bribe taker to run for mayor. If and when they do, they’ll have my vote (or they would if I still lived in New York).
"When the far-left wins, they are keen to spin it as conclusive evidence that theirs is the only way. When they lose, they’re suspiciously quiet—or they start to point fingers." You mean, they blame the Jews (in the form of AIPAC).
Do tell me when the left EVER does not point fingers. Fingers and guns are the main tools of the left. 😁
About impeachment, it’s a political process that has nothing to do with right or wrong. So as long as the house and the senate are under republican control, Trump is not going to be convinced for anything. A handful perhaps push back maybe a little bit, but once the rubber hits the road they’ll all fall in line. For exhibit A) see the confirmations of all the incompetent and corrupt members of the cabinet. So wait with any impeachment until you know you ca actually win. Again, it’s a political process, not a judicial one.
With regards to Mamdani, he is what I’m hoping for is the future of this country. Let’s not pretend what he represents has anything to do with Soviet-style socialism. Let’s not conflate the terms. There are many degrees in the left spectrum.
The truth is that for ordinary Americans life keeps getting harder, not better, and the reason is the increasing wealth inequality. The rich are sucking the middle class dry. And the money in politics makes it happen.
Trump recognized and homed in prices being too high, and that’s why he won. People voted with their wallets, and I can’t blame them. Unfortunately they also didn’t realize or remembered that he is a snake oil salesman who is doing nothing to seriously improve the situations of ordinary people. He’s interested in enriching himself and his friends himself, and playing king and have his ring kissed.
My hope is that Mamdani manages to normalize his narrative from “radical-left-wing lunatic speak “to “yes, that actually makes sense, his proposals are not just a pipe dream, but they can be paid for if we do x, y and z.” And he gets there not because of big money, but because there’s more of us than there are of them. And then this template is applied and works, so help us God, in the midterms and in 2028.
I read that piece twice and I’m still not sure what your criticism is. Further, I’m not sure that you’re sure what your criticism is, beyond a fear-based reaction of the word “socialism.”
The article links Mamdani with Eastern Bloc forms of socialism because he aligns with the DSA. As proof you offer the DSA’s beliefs that the Russian invasion of Ukraine hurts worker rights and that Russia needs to withdraw under ceasefire. The second piece you offered is a very logical belief that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself. My disagreements with the leadership aside, there are 92 million citizens who live there and have a right to life. Their country has a right to defend them from attacks, just like America has a right to defend us. Iran has no obligation to sit for being attacked simply because the attackers are self-professed “good guys.” Don’t start war if you don’t want war. Right? Goes for Iran, too, btw.
Are you trying to say that Mamdani’s platforms aren’t the only popular ones and there are more? Are you trying to suggest the working class populism policies that won Trump the Whitehouse in ‘24 are broader and the young’uns who are rabid for Mamdani need to temper their fervor?
Because, honestly, this just reads like more “anything that says socialism is bad because some people who called themselves socialists were bad. Trust me bro” stuff you’d find on a million Facebook posts.
Aye. I'm having a hard time escaping the nagging suspicion that Garry's personal history is prompting him to engage in some rather unseemly and poorly thought out knee-jerking here.
After every Next Move I read, I look forward to the Next.
The late Senator Paul Wellstone used to say, “we all do better when we all do better”. So I agree that a combination of social safety nets, prudent regulations, and good business are cornerstones that work. The bottom line is Democrats need high-quality candidates who are relatable, authentic and can articulate solid positions, and take question after question after question competently (a flaw with Harris). And yes please, be under 60. At this point, any label except fascist will do.
As a survivor and extremely lucky escapee from the totalitarian tyrannical regime of the Soviet Union I can confidently add that socialism, and here I am not discussing the Western social democratic ideas, inevitably leads either into national-socialism also known as fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship, just like Marx predicted. So pick as you like...
The main characteristics of socialism is not the free services but rather the relationship with a private property. Socialism does not allow the private enterprise and ownership, placing all means of production in the hands of government. It is rather frustrating to notice when any attempt to provide free services are immediately labeled as "socialism" = BAD! Mamdani is no Socialist which does not make him any more likable (to me:))