Zohran Mamdani, state assemblyman from Astoria, is making waves in the New York mayoral race. His slick, Gen Z–friendly campaign sets him apart from an otherwise stuffy center-left field. With a combination of affable charm and a measured distance from Democratic machine politics, he has risen to a strong second place in opinion polls. Mamdani is running on a progressive platform focused on working-class reforms, and a confluence of circumstances is working in his favor: corrupt incumbent Eric Adams is faltering as he makes deals with Trump to avoid jail; disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo enjoys name recognition and the backing of the party establishment, but New York’s ranked-choice voting scheme gives Mamdani a fighting chance; and winning a Democratic primary in New York is almost synonymous with winning the general election. For Mamdani and his army of canvassers, this campaign is not merely an awareness-raising exercise: they are playing to win, and it’s not an unthinkable outcome.

Why Mamdani, Why Now?

Mamdani’s popularity is not just a result of his personal charisma or the appeal of social democratic policies. He is riding a historic wave of dissatisfaction and mistrust of the Democratic Party among working-class people. The Democrats’ broad national losses in 2024 were mirrored by significant rightward shifts among the New York electorate; this crisis of legitimacy gives Mamdani the space to mount a progressive challenge. He is tapping into a deep sympathy for socialist politics among a wide swath of working people, particularly the disillusioned, downwardly-mobile generation struggling against neoliberalism, who are reviving independent workplace organizing with a vengeance. Mamdani has stronger “left” bona fides than any other candidate: he participated in a 15-day hunger strike with debt-burdened taxi workers in 2021 and has consistently spoken in defense of Palestine and the student movement on the city’s campuses.

This sets Mamdani apart as the most progressive candidate to seriously contest the office in a generation — since the tenure of one-time DSA member David Dinkins at the dawn of the 1990s. He proposes an ambitious reformist program that includes rent freezes, fare-free MTA buses, city-run grocery stores, and a billion-dollar community safety agency separate from the New York Police Department (NYPD). While these proposals are attractive, they raise a critical question for socialists: how to contest, and potentially wield, the power of an elected executive office. Zohran’s campaign represents a classic “inside-outside” strategy, in which self-described socialists run on a major party’s ballot line, leveraging the party’s resources and campaign infrastructure to elevate a more progressive candidate.¹This article assumes some familiarity with the question of class independence that has long bedeviled the DSA, America’s largest socialist organization. While there is nominal agreement among most members that a break from the Democratic Party is necessary, there is disagreement over the tactical question of a “clean break” (stopping the use of the Democratic ballot line for elections by running candidates independently, a position that Left Voice largely agrees with) versus a “dirty break” (maintaining nominal ties with Democrats for access to votes and funding, with class independence as a more-or-less explicit goal, the nominal strategy of most DSA electoral campaigns). Yet the organization’s failure to openly confront and resolve this question for many years has resulted in neither a clean nor a dirty break, nor even a consensus around either option. Instead, a default policy of “dirty stay” prevails, wherein the preferences of the most liberal-aligned and electoral-minded factions of the party dominate thanks to their familiarity, convenience, and relative inoffensiveness to the establishment. The outcome is that politicians like AOC become the left flank of the Democratic apparatus they were elected to oppose. A victory in the NYC mayoral race would be the highest-profile election of a “socialist” politician anywhere in the United States; our city has a budget larger than that of a third of U.S. states and a larger population than all but 12 states. For a socialist to hold such an office — becoming the head of the NYPD and the boss against whom every unionized city worker negotiates — raises significant contradictions. Before this, however, the truth is that by running as a Democrat, Mamdani is not taking advantage of the deep crisis of the Democratic Party as he claims, but rather sowing illusions in a capitalist party as a vehicle for change for a new generation.

With this in mind, the “weak points” of Mamdani’s agenda — notably police reform, defense of migrants, and the expansion of labor’s power — are not merely insufficient for socialists; the logic of his campaign contradicts socialist strategy. It serves to rebuild faith in institutions of class rule that are fundamentally hostile to our class. Especially now, when these institutions are historically unpopular and are being wielded against the working class in new and vicious ways, the moment is ripe for the working class to take up its own defense, using its own methods against Trump and the Far Right. Democrats, too, are historically unpopular with their supposed working-class base and are completely unwilling and incapable of mounting a defense against the Right. Intentionally or not, Mamdani is proposing to revisit these dead ends at a time when the working class can — and must — break free from them. By promoting the illusion that electing a better class of Democrat might enable “socialist” reforms from above, he undermines the essential work of building power from below.

Socialist Strategy: Rallying the Working Class, Not Supporting Democrats

A primary difference between Mamdani’s campaign strategy and a socialist electoral strategy lies not in whether to run in bourgeois elections, but in the purpose of doing so. If the strategy is to implement social democratic reforms from elected positions within the bourgeois system, it makes perfect sense to campaign like Mamdani: on the Democratic ballot line, appealing to the popularity of social-reformist policies. But as socialists, we aim not merely to win specific reforms but to build the independent power of the working class, helping it recognize itself as a political actor capable of taking action on its own behalf. In some cases, this goal might involve using the power or platform of an elected office to advance class struggle. Socialists in office should lead every fight against the Right’s anti-democratic attacks on the rights of free expression, association, assembly, and protest. Class independence, however, requires doing this with a clear socialist program that goes beyond “rescuing” bourgeois democracy, which has always offered limited promises for working people. Socialists must demonstrate that the true realization of those rights lies elsewhere, along a path paved by the extra-electoral organization of the working class. We cannot bypass the extensive work of building a working-class party that can implement its own program — supported by, but not dependent on, leaders in elected offices.

Socialist electoral strategy fundamentally opposes the idea of redirecting the energies of the working class back into the pacifying structures of the Democratic Party. To engage supporters of socialist policy solely as mere “voters” — rather than as political agents in their own right — is inherently demobilizing, as participants in struggles from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter can attest. Mamdani’s army of door knockers represents a faux-socialist veneer masking the same underlying logic: “Vote for Better Democrats!” But the Democratic Party cannot serve as a vehicle for social movements; it is the graveyard of social movements. For example, consider DSA-backed Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, who has shifted from championing “defund the police” to expanding the Chicago Police Department. Similarly, witness the complete capitulation of once-promising DSA endorsee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the DNC.

By referring to his supporters as “voters,” Mamdani replaces organized power with electoral faith — faith in a candidate who, as we have seen, may negotiate the rights of the working class away for watered down reforms or capitulate to the establishment to get a seat at the table. A socialist politician should be the tribune of a movement that draws its strength from a collective of politically conscious workers, students, communities, and activists.

A significant gap separates the Mamdani campaign from a socialist one, yet his media popularity and fundraising merit discussion to underscore these differences. Beyond the campaign’s generally savvy social media strategy, it is important to highlight Mamdani’s combative spirit: confronting border czar Tom Homan and his associates to demand answers about Mahmoud Khalil’s kidnapping. This act exemplifies what a socialist politician should ideally do with their platform — putting themselves on the line, risking arrest and repression alongside their constituents, and refusing to engage in polite conversations with political adversaries out of concern for niceties or tradition. While this was significantly better than the actions of any other politician or candidate in the United States, Mamdani’s passion is undermined without the power of class struggle.

A candidate using a socialist strategy, rather than merely socialist rhetoric, would rally the labor movement, civil rights organizations, student and faculty associations, and the Palestine movement in all its forms against the kidnappings of Khalil and other students. They would consistently condemn not only Trump and the Republicans but also every Democrat who has remained silent. They would aim to expand the working-class movement against America’s support for Israel, rather than aligning with a party that funds Israel’s bombs and promotes its “security” as part of its core mission. A tribune of a socialist movement would strive to enhance the self-determining capacities of the working class through the struggle for Palestine — demanding the release of disappeared student activists through our collective power as workers and instilling in the working class the understanding that we share no common interests with the genocidaires of Israel or America. Socialist deputies like Ale Vilca of Argentina and public figures like Anasse Kazib in France set a strong example: they can be found at the forefront of every strike and protest, connecting and expanding the workers’ movement, or on the floors of parliament declaring unwavering opposition to the bourgeois state.

This raises another significant challenge that a socialist mayor of New York would face: leading the NYPD. Despite his recent advocacy for “defund” the police Mamdani is attempting to adopt a middle ground on the cops, saying they “have a critical role to play” in city life. He proposes a “community safety force,” independent of the NYPD, to take on some responsibilities currently managed by the police. The ambiguity of this proposal arises from its opportunist impulse: it allows him to sidestep the question of direct budget cuts, staff cutbacks, or other restrictions on police power. But the NYPD is not a passive group of public servants that will readily relinquish their budget, privileges, immunities, and weapons simply because enough New Yorkers vote for it. As the George Floyd uprising reminds us, police view themselves as the armed enforcement wing of the ruling class; they will fiercely defend their right to operate with impunity, democratic mandates be damned. The reforms Mamdani envisions cannot be achieved through the ballot box alone; we need a robust democratic mass movement of working people in every sector of public life to impose them in the face of inevitable resistance and repression.

This contradiction is already manifesting in the campus Palestine movement. Mamdani speaks authentically and passionately about Palestine, rejecting the typical reflexive displays of loyalty to Israel and condemnations of Palestinians or Palestine protesters that many Democrats still maintain. With more students facing academic sanctions, detention, and even deportation every day, Mamdani stands nearly alone among Democratic elected officials and candidates in addressing this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

It is both bizarre and inexcusable to propose leading a bloc of young, anti-imperialist and internationalist minded people into a party of imperialist warmongers. Even at the cost of losing an election to Trump, Democrats at both the local and national level have aligned themselves with the Israeli propaganda machine: they fought every divestment demand and helped manufacture a campus “crisis of antisemitism” to justify deploying police against peaceful student encampments. Good intentions cannot change the fundamental nature of a political party committed to imperialism. There has never been a better moment to assert that the Democrats’ loyalty to Israel conflicts with the interests of the working class, particularly the significant Jewish and Arab working-class communities in New York City. As the movement for Palestine retreats on campuses, it needs more than ever to be infused with the strength of other sectors of the working class. Electing a better class of Democrat is no substitute for organizing the power of students, workers, and communities to pose a real challenge to the imperialist system from within.

As socialists, we gladly echo Mamdani’s denunciations of establishment candidates like Cuomo and Adams, but the strategy of leading the city’s working class back into electoralism, particularly through the Democratic Party, is a time-worn dead end. Today’s Democrats are deeply tarnished; with their hands still stained from defending Biden’s policies, they remain unwilling and incapable of mounting a fight against the attacks of the Far Right. They offer nothing to the working class beyond a nominally gentler management of America’s decline. Socialists, on the other hand, have no excuse: we must pursue a class-independent program, insisting that working-class solutions are not only better but necessary.

Running a socialist electoral campaign can and should be a significant mobilizing effort: presenting solutions that bourgeois politicians refuse to name, denouncing their hesitance, and highlighting their allegiance to capital and complicity with imperialism. Mamdani’s energetic campaign has already demonstrated that New York has a wellspring of working-class enthusiasm for such solutions. This energy and creativity cry out for expression through a class-based party that can combat the Far Right, advocate for Palestine, support migrants’ rights, continue the struggle for Black lives, and defend trans rights using its own methods. Instead, Mamdani and the DSA propose to guide it back into the demobilizing illusions of bourgeois government and the Democratic Party.