I don't necessarily believe Mamdani will follow through on all of his promises, as most politicians don't. However, the establishment's response to him is quite telling.
The resolution is stupid and pointless. It was meant to reassure the oligarchs that nothing will change. One might say the applied definition of hypocrisy includes condemning socialism as it pertains to helping the poor while supporting corporate subsidies and a trillion-dollar military budget. Programs like SNAP came to a halt and Medicaid is facing huge cuts, but politicians will never stop spending billions on Israel's genocide in Gaza, the Ukraine War, or a bailout in Argentina. Socialism is ultimately a matter of priorities.
The establishment just loves to muddy the water when it comes to socialism. When people on the left say they want socialism, what they're typically referring to is Nordic social democracy. According to Google, it's "a political and economic system characterized by a mixed economy, a strong universal welfare state, and a commitment to social equality and individual freedoms. It combines free-market capitalism with extensive public services like universal healthcare and education, funded by high taxes, and a corporatist labor market with high levels of unionization. This model aims to provide high standards of living, reduce income inequality, and promote gender equality."
A mixed economy is what we have now. Schools, police, firefighters, the post office, etc. are all forms of socialism. Most people I know who advocate for social democracy aren't calling for an end to capitalism. We just want to strengthen the existing social safety nets, introduce new ones like universal healthcare, and provide a living wage. The tax burden would be placed on the highest earners who could most afford it. The existing system is intentionally designed so that the rich get richer and everybody else is stifled.
We can agree that there are better ways to implement economic policy, that is not in dispute. Perhaps a different term is needed that combines multiple elements of economic philosophies, because socialism, by definition is a planned economy, that is antithetical to the free market and entrepreneurship.
Nordic socialism does have disadvantages such as high taxes. It can be argued that higher tax rates have a negative impact on incentives. Americans will never tolerate those levels of taxation. Enhancing social safety nets is a worthwhile goal, but how best to do it is debatable. I don't understand what individual freedoms that we do not have, that Nordic countries have. Currently, small business owners do not have to be unionized, there is a process for resolving labor disputes, public education is available, and tens of millions are receiving public assistance. Not a perfect system, granted, but one that has worked well enough to reach 250 years next year. Some of the reasons that the US can not adopt that model is that the histories and cultures of the USA and Scandinavian are completely different, not to mention population size. The USA is also far more diverse in urban/suburban/rural locales, the development of different regions, diversity of ethnics/race/religions etc .However I do appreciate your reasoned response, as opposed to those who have nothing of substance to contribute.
And rhetoric aside, The NYC mayor elect has no realistic plan to pay for these programs, and no biographical expertise to implement such programs.
This is NYC, not some small town with population less than 1000. The failures that could (and maybe even are likely to) happen
would have major effects across sectors.
The establishment response, as you describe, may not have the best priorities in some cases, but it is not all wrong, either.
Much of what results are imperfect solutions/policies in an imperfect world.
People ultimately pursue their own self-interest, regardless of economic status.
It is Adam Smith's "The Invisible Hand" at work, and it has been overwhelmingly successful over time, in results and predicting economic choices.
Socialism did not launch Apple and Microsoft, for example, not to mention thousands of private sector innovations from numerous corporate entities
The wealthy have far more options,
but the middle class is being increasingly burdened. The pie-in -the-sky policies will impact them negatively,
just by their mere proposals. People and business who can leave, will leave, and taxes will increase while resources decrease
That is a recipe for an economic catastrophe.
There is no paradise, and never will be, as long as we imperfect humans are here
