Socialist may defeat Andrew Cuomo in New York City Mayoral Democratic Primary

[DocWatts]

THIS is the energy we need from our Democratic politicians - and it worked.

There's a reason that current Democratic leadership has a lower approval rating than even Donald Trump, whose own approval ratings are in the toilet.

What we want is a party that FIGHTS BACK against Trump's fascist takeover and FIGHTS FOR working people across this country.

 

 

 

Edited June 25 by DocWatts

[Wilhelm44]

Is he a hardcore socialist in the sense of no private ownership of production etc ?

[Husseinisdoingfine]

20 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Well it shows you that something in a more socialist direction is not as scary as some people think.

Socialist direction? There’s so semblance of workplace democracy or employee ownership anywhere in Scandinavia.

21 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

What does true socialism mean to you ? 

The public ownership of the means of production.

[Apparition of Jack]

15 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Is he a hardcore socialist in the sense of no private ownership of production etc ?

I think he’s definitely personally sympathetic to the Marxist worldview, but in practice he’ll just run on a platform of social policy reform.
 

I don’t think it’s actually feasible (or even desirable) at this point to actually seize all private property, that worldview died in the 1800s. What is feasible though is reining in late capitalist insanity, ending corporate capture of politics and providing for everyone’s basic needs, which Mamdani will help greatly with achieving.

[aurum]

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Is he a hardcore socialist in the sense of no private ownership of production etc ?

No.

He's a pretty standard progressive.

[aurum]

25 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

THIS is the energy we need from our Democratic politicians - and it worked.

He is a good speaker.

But can he deliver?

[carterfelder]

48 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Just ignore them. Change the question. Call them out on their bullshit. “Socialism,” “capitalism” etc are just buzzwords at the end of the day. Just point out how popular these policies are and how they’ll help countless people.

We don’t have to play the geriatric neoliberal’s game.

Thank you for your honesty.

[Wilhelm44]

21 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Socialist direction? There’s so semblance of workplace democracy or employee ownership anywhere in Scandinavia.

The public ownership of the means of production.

How do you see public ownership of means of production working practically in a place like America ?

[Wilhelm44]

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

No.

He's a pretty standard progressive.

Okay, that sounds better.

[Wilhelm44]

18 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

I think he’s definitely personally sympathetic to the Marxist worldview, but in practice he’ll just run on a platform of social policy reform.
 

I don’t think it’s actually feasible (or even desirable) at this point to actually seize all private property, that worldview died in the 1800s. What is feasible though is reining in late capitalist insanity, ending corporate capture of politics and providing for everyone’s basic needs, which Mamdani will help greatly with achieving.

Yeah, pure socialism don't sound like a good idea to me. 

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, carterfelder said:

I asked Grok about Scandinavia:

"Scandinavia—often cited as a socialist success story—isn’t purely socialist. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark operate mixed economies with strong welfare systems, high taxes, and robust public services, but they’re firmly capitalist at their core. Private property, free markets, and entrepreneurship drive their wealth. For example, Sweden’s GDP per capita is around $60,000, largely from private industries like tech and manufacturing, not state-controlled means of production. Their welfare models work because of high trust, homogeneous societies, and wealth generated by capitalism, not because they’ve abandoned it.

Playing devil’s advocate, I’d argue socialism hasn’t truly 'succeeded' in Scandinavia because it’s not socialism in the classical sense—centralized control of resources and production. These countries rank high on economic freedom indices (e.g., Denmark’s 2024 Heritage Foundation score is 77.6, among the freest globally). Their systems rely on capitalist efficiency to fund redistribution, not collective ownership. If anything, Scandinavia shows capitalism’s flexibility, not socialism’s triumph. Pure socialism, as seen historically in places like the Soviet Union, tends to stagnate economically due to misallocated resources—something Scandinavia avoids by staying market-driven."

I hear you.  Probably won't work as well in America. Seems like America just needs to get their rich to pay their fair share of tax somehow.

[Hardkill]

33 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Is he a hardcore socialist in the sense of no private ownership of production etc ?

No, he's not a traditional socialist/communist. I used to think that leftists such as Bernie Sanders and AOC were for Socialism or Communism like in the old days of the Soviet Union because they are self-described socialists, I used to believe my parents who said that people like are naive radical left-wingers, was easily convinced by all of the propaganda out there that smeared DSAs and progressives as commies who have ideas that would never work in America, and I didn't really know much about politics before until I started to seriously learning and following it about a few years ago.

However, I eventually learned what Democratic Socialism is and what exactly are the ideas and policy positions of DSAs are. 

Democratic socialism doesn’t aim to get rid of all private ownership, unlike the primitive authoritarian style of Socialism/Communism which does involve pushing for total state control over pretty much everything—including private property. Democratic Socialism is more about making sure things that are super important for everyone—like healthcare, education, and infrastructure—are run by the government or the community, rather than being profit-driven.

But people can still own their own homes, small businesses, and stuff like that. The idea is to make sure wealth and power aren’t just in the hands of a few people, while still keeping things democratic and letting people own their personal property.

Moreover, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, and other DSAs aren't truly Democratic Socialists. When you look at their policies and ideas they are really Social Democrats, that are for the Nordic style or Canadian style governance and economy. I don't know why they've called themselves Democratic Socialists when they aren't exactly that and is a bad label from a marketing standpoint when trying to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible. Yet, they just decided to call themselves that.

[Wilhelm44]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

No, he's not a traditional socialist/communist. I used to think that leftists such as Bernie Sanders and AOC were for Socialism or Communism like in the old days of the Soviet Union because they are self-described socialists, I used to believe my parents who said that people like are naive radical left-wingers, was easily convinced by all of the propaganda out there that smeared DSAs and progressives as commies who have ideas that would never work in America, and I didn't really know much about politics before until I started to seriously learning and following it about a few years ago.

However, I eventually learned what Democratic Socialism is and what exactly are the ideas and policy positions of DSAs are. 

Democratic socialism doesn’t aim to get rid of all private ownership, unlike the primitive authoritarian style of Socialism/Communism which does involve pushing for total state control over pretty much everything—including private property. Democratic Socialism is more about making sure things that are super important for everyone—like healthcare, education, and infrastructure—are run by the government or the community, rather than being profit-driven.

But people can still own their own homes, small businesses, and stuff like that. The idea is to make sure wealth and power aren’t just in the hands of a few people, while still keeping things democratic and letting people own their personal property.

Moreover, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, and other DSAs aren't truly Democratic Socialists. When you look at their policies and ideas they are really Social Democrats, that are for the Nordic style or Canadian style governance and economy. I don't know why they've called themselves Democratic Socialists when they aren't exactly that and is a bad label from a marketing standpoint when trying to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible. Yet, they just decided to call themselves that.

So it's quite similar to the Scandinavian way of running things ?  Or will there be some major differences ?

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Even to describe Scandinavia as socially-democratic is not accurate, as social democracy is worker self management within a capitalist market economy, which Scandinavia doesn't have. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Democratic socialism doesn’t aim to get rid of all private ownership, unlike the primitive authoritarian style of Socialism/Communism which does involve pushing for total state control over pretty much everything—including private property. Democratic Socialism is more about making sure things that are super important for everyone—like healthcare, education, and infrastructure—are run by the government or the community, rather than being profit-driven.

But people can still own their own homes, small businesses, and stuff like that. The idea is to make sure wealth and power aren’t just in the hands of a few people, while still keeping things democratic and letting people own their personal property.

This is false. The word democratic in democratic socialism refers to a liberal democratic multi-party system, so the means of production are still going to be publicly owned and private property largely abolished, but its going to come through and exist within a multi-party electoral system. 

Granted, democratic socialists are more so opposed to centrally planned state socialism, but that doesn't mean they support private enterprise, for which they largely don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Socialism, and even social democracy, is not about the welfare programs that the government provides, it has nothing to do with healthcare, its about employee ownership and employee self management. Democratic socialists and social democrats just disagree on the degree and scale. DemSocs wants it full 100%, whereas as SocDems want it, hypothetically lets say... 50% or less.

 

Edited June 25 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

So it's quite similar to the Scandinavian way of running things ?  Or will there be some major differences ?

Basically, the same as the Scandinavian way of running things. 

That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone like Mamdani would be able to dramatically reform NYC if he becomes mayor because of the constraints of the political reality he would or will have to deal with including the lobbying against him during his time in office, how much resistance there will be from the more moderate to conservative-leaning members of New York's city council, how competent Mamdani turns out to be at his job, etc.

[Hardkill]

2 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

This is false. The word democratic in democratic socialism refers to a liberal democratic multi-party system, so the means of production are still going to be publicly owned and private property largely abolished, but its going to come through and exist within a multi-party electoral system. 

Granted, democratic socialists are more so opposed to centrally planned state socialism, but that doesn't mean they support private enterprise, for which they largely don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Although, Democratic Socialism allows private ownership of personal property and small businesses.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

2 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Although, Democratic Socialism allows private ownership of personal property and small businesses.

Personal property yes, but so did Communist regimes.

Small business? Disputable. Is that small business owned by its employees? Or by the petite bourgeoise?

 

Edited June 25 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Personal property yes, but so did Communist regimes.

Small business? Disputable. Is that small business owned by its employees? Or by the petite bourgeoise?

 

Socialist/Communist regimes in the past or in countries like in Cuba or North Korea don’t allow for really any personal property.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Socialist/Communist regimes in the past or in countries like in Cuba or North Korea don’t allow for really any personal property.

Personal property is different from private property.

Private property refers specifically to specifically the means of production that the bourgeoisie uses to extract value from the proletariat. Personal property refers to personal belongings and possessions.

Enjoy this explanation by an AI:

 

In Marxism, private property refers to the means of production (land, factories, etc.) owned by private individuals or corporations, used to generate profit through wage labor. Personal property, on the other hand, refers to possessions for personal use, such as clothing, a toothbrush, or a house used for personal residence. Marxism critiques private property as the foundation of capitalism, leading to exploitation, while supporting personal property for individual use. 

Here's a more detailed breakdown: 

Private Property:

In Marxist theory, private property is not simply about owning things for personal use. It's about the ownership of the means of production that allows one class (the bourgeoisie) to exploit another (the proletariat) by controlling the production process and appropriating surplus value. This system fosters inequality and class conflict.

Personal Property:

Marxists do not object to personal property. They acknowledge the need for individuals to own items for their personal use and enjoyment. This includes things like clothing, furniture, books, and even a house for living in, as long as it's not used to extract surplus value from others.

Marxist Critique:

The core of the Marxist critique lies in the idea that private property in the means of production creates an unequal power dynamic. This leads to exploitation, alienation, and social problems inherent in capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

The Wikipedia link above, scroll down to where it reads, Personal vis-à-vis private property.

Edited June 26 by Husseinisdoingfine