The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the US. The DSA has matured and moved to the left since its initial growth in 2017. Since Trump’s re-election and the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the NYC mayoral primary, DSA may soon break its previous membership record of approximately 90k members. Its successes and contradictions will raise new challenges and strategic debates.
Mamdani’s success, taken alongside the lasting popularity of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, demonstrates that left demands and calls to rally the working class against the billionaires still have mass resonance despite Trump’s strength. The consensus in DSA is that socialists should build toward a new working class party. However, the DSA’s ability to grow has been predicated on its representatives, like Mamdani, overwhelmingly standing for elections in the notoriously pro-capitalist and pro-war Democratic Party. This contradictory configuration is not poised to change soon. A victory by Mamdani in the New York City general election on November 4 will likely only fuel more left and socialist candidates to run as Democrats.
Mamdani is not the only positive news for the US left. There are semi-consistent street actions to resist Trump, and Trump’s popularity is declining. The socialist left, which stumbled under Biden, has space to redevelop to new levels of strength. There are no guarantees in the fight against Trump’s grave threats. But it is now clear that the DSA will be a very important factor in any process to rebuild the US socialist left.
A solid general formula for US revolutionaries is: help build a new working class party independent of the Democrats, and also the creation of a substantial Marxist cadre that can begin to reach a mass audience. But how should revolutionaries engage right now with the US socialist movement as it really is? This question requires discussing the latest developments in DSA.
Internationalist Standpoint is republishing this article in an effort to cover many perspectives on developments in the DSA and the challenges facing the US left. Our own report on this year’s DSA convention can be read here. We intend to publish more material on the DSA.
Nick Wozniak – Matthew Wylder (members of Chicago DSA chapter)
This piece by Ty Moore was originally published in Labor Power Publications
In his contribution to “A User’s Guide to DSA”, Ty Moore considers Mayor Mamdani’s coming dilemmas.
Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary is a historic achievement for the socialist left. With a commanding 12-point defeat of Andrew Cuomo, despite the record-shattering $25 million smear campaign against Mamdani, the election has electrified progressive forces across US society. Meanwhile, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party emerged further discredited, with millions now embracing the need for progressive working-class demands to win elections.
The campaign galvanized a broad multi-racial coalition around a bold working-class platform to confront the city’s profound affordability crisis. Propelled by an army of 50,000 volunteers who knocked on 1.6 million doors for Zohran, the victory was also a testament to the formidable organizing power of the NYC Democratic Socialists of America.
Mamdani now appears in a commanding position (as of writing in mid-July) to be elected the mayor of New York City this November against Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo. Despite panicked attempts by New York’s business and political elite to unite behind a single pro-corporate candidate to block Zohran’s ascension to Gracie Mansion, even Mamdani’s critics acknowledge that he is the frontrunner.
If Zohran does become New York’s mayor, it would be by far the most significant elected position a DSA candidate has ever held – arguably the greatest socialist election victory in US history. For reference, in New York’s 14th Congressional District, represented by AOC, the number of votes cast is roughly between 110,000 and 220,000 (depending on whether it’s a midterm or presidential election year). By contrast, over 1.1 million people – five to ten times more voters – typically cast a ballot in New York City mayoral elections. And Mamdani would represent a population over ten times larger (more than 8 million versus around 750,000) than AOC.
Writing for The New York Times on July 9th, left-wing journalist Ross Barkin said:
If [Mamdani] prevails, he will be, without a doubt, the most powerful unabashedly left-wing politician in America. That’s direct power: over America’s largest police force, its largest education department, and a municipal budget that has soared past $110 billion. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are famous and influential leftists, but they do not oversee the machinery of government in the way mayors do. And governing, unlike legislating, cannot simply default to activism.[1]
This final quip by Barkin, whose 2018 state senate campaign Mamdani managed, sets up one of his central conclusions:
In addition, [Mamdani] cannot, as socialists sometimes do, attempt to abolish capitalism. He should seek, as best as he can, an outcome that leads to more wealth redistribution or at least makes life in New York slightly more affordable. The richest New Yorkers should emerge from a Mamdani administration largely unscathed because he is not seizing the means of production. They can keep making money. Some, in time, may even be charmed by him.[2]
While it is true that consciousness and conditions are far from ripe to overthrow capitalism, this advice is profoundly dangerous. While presented in a cheeky tone, there are serious conclusions that flow from the strawman Barken suggests: Zohran, apparently, must choose between immediately abolishing capitalism or he must lower his horizons to just tinkering around the edges of capitalism. Of course, this framing produces the result Barkin favors. I would pose the question entirely differently. Will Zohran pursue a socialist policy of class struggle to win the reforms he was elected to carry out, and in the process help to build a powerful socialist movement in New York City and nationwide? Or will he seek out a policy of class collaboration based on a false hope of managing capitalism better than the capitalists?
Barkin’s recommendation amounts to a call for Zohran to carry out an essentially similar policy to New York’s last progressive mayor, Bill de Blasio, with maybe some socialist rhetoric tacked on. We should not forget that de Blasio did freeze the rent for NYC’s one million regulated units and created free universal pre-K and 3K, all very positive reforms. Yet he did not go far enough to address the dire affordability crisis, which only grew under his administration. De Blasio antagonized business elites enough to earn their hostility, but failed to inspire working-class forces to rally to his defense.
Zohron won by raising expectations. If he now limits his aspirations to winning a “slightly more affordable” New York while reassuring billionaires they will remain “unscathed,” the mass movement character of his campaign – the foundation of his power and success – will be undermined, and his administration’s capacity to deliver even small reforms will be profoundly weakened.
Yet calls for moderation of Mamdani’s radical socialist profile are raining down from every corner of official US politics. These calls are already stoking major debates within DSA. For socialists, the discussion has thrust strategic questions of existential importance to the forefront:
1. Can socialists govern capitalism without capitulating?
How can a Mamdani administration achieve its campaign promises for a more affordable New York City against the ferocious ruling-class backlash that is already being prepared? More fundamentally, how can any socialist holding executive office avoid the endless traps of simply managing a broken, failing system on behalf of the capitalist class? What strategy is required to wield the mayor’s office as a weapon for the working class rather than putting a kinder face on the inherently oppressive, exploitative capitalist system?
2. Can Zohran turn his electoral army into a mass working-class movement?
The only force capable of countering the immense pressure on Mayor Mamdani from organized capital is the mass counter-pressure of an organized working class. Can Zohran successfully transition the energy of 50,000 campaign volunteers into a durable, fighting organization with real power in the city’s workplaces and communities? Ultimately, holding our elected officials accountable is less about internal structures, and more about whether our movement can exercise enough independent social and political power to win its demands and keep our leaders aligned with our cause. NYC-DSA has a crucial role to play in forging this force by offering a clear socialist lead and timely proposals for the struggle. DSA is well positioned to grow into a major force in the New York working class by advancing a bold socialist message in support of every positive step taken by Mamdani, while being prepared to raise our own independent positions if Zohran departs from socialist principles.
3. Will Mamdani’s win further DSA’s political independence or our re-assimilation into the Democratic Party?
Can this historic victory be leveraged to strengthen the fight for socialism, or will reformist pressures drag DSA back into the role of a loyal opposition within a capitalist party? This question goes to the heart of DSA’s purpose and the future of the socialist movement in the United States. Can we seize this breakthrough moment to begin transitioning DSA into the mass working-class organization we need – one politically independent of our class enemies – to truly challenge the billionaire class and advance the struggle for a socialist world?
The Iron Cage of the Capitalist Municipality
Should he win in November, a democratic socialist will preside over New York City, the beating heart of global capitalism. This prospect forces DSA to urgently grapple with a core ideological debate: is the goal of socialist electoral politics to capture state office to manage the capitalist system more humanely, or is it to use that office as a weapon in the struggle for a socialist transformation of society? Is it even possible, in this era of capitalist crisis and accelerating inequality, for socialists to win a significant redistribution of wealth in one city (even one as big and wealthy as New York City)?
These questions will not be answered in abstract theory alone; they will be forged within the emerging battle for New York City. The central debate between reformism and a principled socialist approach will have a rich well of lived experience to draw from in the years to come.
The forces that will be arrayed against a Mamdani administration are formidable. They are not waiting for him to take office to signal their intent. New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, who holds immense power over New York City’s finances and ability to tax, has been explicitly hostile to his core proposals. Hochul’s opposition to Mamdani’s plan to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund his social programs – proposals that require state approval – has been consistent. In July, Hochul’s spokesperson told City & State: “Governor Hochul has been clear that she will not raise income taxes … Raising income taxes risks driving more people out of the state.”[3]
Hochul is speaking here as the executive of the Democratic Party establishment on behalf of her big business backers. Similarly, the powerful real estate lobby and Wall Street financiers have reacted with predictable alarm. The threat of capital flight, of businesses relocating or halting new investment, will be a powerful weapon used to discipline his administration.
Furthermore, Mamdani will face a city council dominated by business-backed Democrats and a police department with a long history of racist hostility toward left-wing and Black leadership, as seen in the intense opposition to former Mayor David Dinkins. As the city’s first Muslim mayor, Mamdani will face an especially virulent, Islamophobic, and right-wing reaction. Trump is already leveling threats against Zohran and may attempt to make an example out of him, using the federal government’s wide-ranging powers to undermine his administration. Most importantly, Zohran is up against the concentrated power of Wall Street, which holds the city’s finances hostage through the municipal bond market.
The day-to-day business of governing is full of traps. The mayor is tasked with managing a municipal budget, negotiating with public sector unions, and maintaining “business confidence” to prevent capital flight. The pressure to be “pragmatic,” to compromise, to prove that a socialist can “govern effectively” – meaning, to manage capitalism without disrupting profits – will be enormous. These forces will not be won over by clever maneuvering; they can only be defeated by altering the balance of power between the working and capitalist classes. The most important way to change this relationship in our favor is by building a powerful, well-organized, mass movement of workers, young people, and all those oppressed by capitalism.
Whenever socialists are elected to govern capitalism, the path of least resistance is to moderate one’s program, lower expectations, and attempt to “co-govern” with the business community. The history of working-class parties worldwide is thick with examples of well-meaning mayors and national governments becoming overwhelmed by such pressures and lacking the ideological framework – a political strategy – to chart a path forward based on class struggle. For Mamdani and NYC-DSA, there is a serious risk that they will meet a similar fate, failing to deliver more than symbolic victories, leading to demoralization of their activist base, and disappointing the huge enthusiasm behind their campaign created in NY and around the world.
A Contested Narrative: Why Mamdani Won
Before delving further into the challenges ahead, it’s crucial to appreciate and understand the enormous strengths of Mamdani’s campaign, which offers a powerful and replicable blueprint for the socialist movement nationwide. What lessons DSA and wider forces draw from his victory will shape the direction of his administration (and US politics more widely), which is why the narrative battle over his campaign is flaring so brightly.
Two days after the primary election, The New York Times ran a major article titled “Can Mamdani’s Energetic Campaign Be a Blueprint for Democrats?”[4] The article is comical for any serious socialist, essentially side-stepping the central role played by Mamdani’s popular demands for a rent freeze, free universal childcare, fast and free buses, and taxing the rich to pay for it all. Instead, the article places a shallow emphasis on the “progressive state lawmaker’s sleek social media presence,” youthful charisma, and “authenticity” as the key to building an “army of eager volunteers.” With The New York Times’ ideological blinders on full display, the article suggests such one-sided emulations of Mamdani’s approach “could offer his party a road map for how to win back voters.”
The next day, Bernie Sanders pushed back in a Guardian op-ed:
Some may claim that Mamdani’s victory was just about style and the fact that he is a charismatic candidate. Yes. He is. But you don’t get a Mamdani victory without the extraordinary grassroots movement that rallied around him. And you don’t get that movement and thousands of enthusiastic people knocking on doors without an economic agenda that speaks to the needs of working people. The people of New York and all Americans understand that, in the richest country on earth, they should not have to struggle every day just to put food on the table, pay their rent or pay their medical bills. These are the people the Democratic consultants don’t know exist.[5]
While Mamdani is, undoubtedly, a skilled communicator, socialists must emphasize that the key to his historic victory was the clarity of his class-struggle message, laser-focused on the affordability crisis crushing working people. Unlike so many DSA and progressive candidates who offer vague platitudes about “values,” Mamdani anchored his campaign in concrete, bold demands, specifically a rent freeze, universal free childcare, and free and fast buses. He hammered away at these in every speech, interview, and campaign ad. His media appearances were a masterclass in political discipline, deftly turning every trap the corporate media laid for him into a pivot back to his core message.
This approach – promising substantial, material improvements to the lives of working-class New Yorkers – mirrors the disciplined messaging of Bernie Sanders’ presidential runs and the victories of independent socialist Kshama Sawant in Seattle. It proves, once again, that a platform of clear, fighting demands – a promise to improve workers’ daily lives – resonates far more deeply than abstract ideals. It also creates the basis for working people to have concrete and specific expectations of what a candidate will fight for if elected, making the task of holding politicians accountable much more meaningful.
Equally important, Mamdani’s campaign skillfully and unapologetically identified a clear antagonist – the billionaires who dominate New York City and their paid politicians like Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Eric Adams. He successfully framed the election as a struggle between the interests of working people and the real estate moguls, corporate elites, and political establishment who profit from their declining living standards. This class-struggle narrative was accessible and powerful, echoing the approach of Sanders, whose call for a “political revolution against the billionaire class” united a broad coalition of voters.
Zohran correctly foregrounded popular economic issues and avoided the kind of identitarian messaging that can alienate socially conservative workers by making them feel like they are the enemy. At the same time, he did not fall into the common opportunist trap of throwing vulnerable communities under the bus in an unprincipled search for electoral “success.” Instead, he forcefully opposed ICE raids and Trump’s attacks on immigrants and held a firm line on trans rights. Despite the deluge of racist attacks on him as an “anti-semitic Islamist,” Zohran defended his opposition to the Israeli war on Gaza and his support for the Palestinian struggle.
This potent combination of a radical message, a clear enemy, and a popular set of fighting demands is what unleashed the grassroots army that powered the campaign. To inspire tens of thousands of volunteers to dedicate their lives to a cause requires raising expectations with a bold, radical edge. People need to believe that a campaign is different, that it is genuinely committed to an all-out fight, and that their participation truly matters.
More than most DSA-endorsed candidates in recent memory, Mamdani didn’t run from the socialist label, a fact amplified by media coverage that consistently linked him to the movement. Despite his decision to lean into the Democratic label more in this race than previously (a point we discuss further below), his socialist and movement-oriented profile allowed him to largely sidestep the popular distrust and record of betrayals that burden the Democratic Party brand. This was the key to building his enormous base of active supporters.
The lesson for socialists everywhere is a vital one: bland, milquetoast progressivism is a dead end. It fails to capture the imagination or win the trust of a working class beset by crisis, repeatedly betrayed by their leaders, and desperately looking for a real alternative. Mamdani’s success is a testament to the fact that, in order to build a mass movement, a campaign must promise a sharp, fundamental break with the status quo.
Debates Within DSA
To understand the likely trajectory of a Mamdani mayoralty, we must soberly assess the campaign that brought him to this point. As the socialist writer and organizer Eric Blanc correctly argued in The Call, the campaign’s success was rooted in its focus on “universal, class-wide demands” like affordability, which resonated far beyond the existing socialist base. Blanc correctly highlights that Zohran created a “movement campaign” that overwhelmed the establishment.[6] Blanc writes:
Despite what his opponents claim, Zohran is not a dogmatic extremist, but a radical pragmatist. He could not have gotten this far had he not focused on bread-and-butter economic issues, spoken in a commonsense language, ran as a Democrat, dropped his support for defunding the police, and endorsed Brad Lander. Zohran refused to drop his support for democratic socialism or his opposition to Zionist apartheid, but performative ultra-leftism was anathema to this campaign.[7]
While the article as a whole was one-sided (in ways the rest of this article will spell out), Blanc’s implicit criticism here of some on the far left is absolutely correct. At the beginning of the campaign when NYC-DSA was deciding whether to endorse Mamdani, some voices on the far left of the chapter argued against endorsing (or endorsing in a hesitant and ineffective way). The Emerge Caucus opposed endorsing Mamdani citing, among other issues, his failure to call for defunding the NYPD. Marxist Unity Group (MUG) was divided on the issue, but even those backing a formal endorsement advocated doing so in a tepid and ultra-left way.[8]
A NYC MUG article “Run Zohran?” argued that “it is imperative that Zohran Mamdani does NOT run to win,” suggesting this should be a condition of whether or not to endorse.[9] While MUG was correct to highlight the huge challenges of winning an executive office, this is simply not a serious approach. It amounts to a conversation stopper with working people who want to see real change. In practice, MUG’s approach would have meant DSA avoiding a serious effort to build a strong campaign, much less a serious struggle for political power. Once the campaign took off, many on DSA’s left ripped into Mamdani for his statements accepting Israel’s right to exist even though he repeatedly emphasized his opposition to the war on Gaza and his opposition to the undemocratic Jewish supremacist character of the Israeli apartheid state.
If DSA as a whole and Mamdani’s campaign had adopted the advice of these voices on DSA’s far left, the result would have been disastrous. The US working class and socialist left, uniquely among major capitalist powers, has never established a mass workers party and has little experience with mass politics. This long experience of marginalization contributes to a far left that, too often, fights to keep its socialist principles untainted by effectively avoiding any real struggle for mass influence (what Marxists call ultra-leftism and sectarianism). Winning a mass working-class base, by its very nature, exposes socialists to enormous opportunist pressures and complications. Much of the far-left criticism of Mamdani (though not all of it!) is valid and includes points I agree with in content. But the tactical conclusion to not endorse or effectively stand aside from Mamdani’s campaign was completely wrong.
If groups like Emerge and MUG in NYC-DSA had more influence and their positions had carried the day, the result would have meant DSA missing a truly historic opportunity to build the socialist movement. We have no chance of displacing the opportunist politics that hold sway on the wider left when the concrete proposals emanating from the far left wind up undermining real-life mass struggles, electoral or otherwise. Too often the revolutionary left limits itself to general propagandastic criticisms, but is unable to translate Marxist ideas into credible proposals that can actually help the movement succeed. To fight to win leadership in the movement, Marxists within DSA must be capable of concretizing our revolutionary politics into effective, practical proposals and clear demands. To avoid ultra-left mistakes we must have a sense of proportion, stay tactically flexible, and find constructive ways to raise our criticisms.
At the same time, we cannot accept the dominant opportunism within DSA, which so frequently reduces our role to cheerleading the broader movements we are engaged in. While the impressive political strengths of Zohran’s campaign shine most brightly today, there are serious political shortcomings which will come to the forefront if he wins in November. Unfortunately, the leadership of NYC-DSA (mainly comrades in Groundwork and Socialist Majority Caucus) have indicated no real daylight between DSA and Mamdani’s political message. If the chapter leadership fails to politically prepare DSA’s membership for the disagreements and challenges ahead, it risks both demoralization and far more explosive debates in the future.
Building a 50,000-Strong Political Machine
At the end of June, Eric Blanc also raised some ideas for how Zohran can transform his huge GOTV machine into an ongoing organized movement after he gets elected. Blanc tweeted “We’ll need tens of thousands of New Yorkers actively organizing our neighbors & co-workers to demand the city council & governor support his 3 core policies.”[10] He suggested Mamdani organize his 50,000 volunteer base to collect one million signatures from their co-workers and neighbors for a petition demanding that the city council and governor support his three core proposals.[11]
This is an excellent proposal for how to concretely engage Zohran’s huge base with tools to get organized and take steps towards building the mass pressure that will be needed to win the main demands of the campaign. Yet the reaction on Twitter from a number of radical left activists in DSA was to oppose this as somehow in contradiction to building DSA.[12], [13] This is a textbook example of sectarian thinking that must be overcome. Of course we should build DSA, and it is a political problem that Zohran has not been promoting DSA. But this should not be counterposed to proposals to build a mass campaign that could draw in wider forces than those who are ready to join DSA.
There is clearly an opportunity to recruit thousands of Zohran supporters to DSA and for NYC-DSA to grow from 8,600 members to 10,000, 15,000, or even more this year. But it is also clear that the majority of Zohran supporters are not ready to join DSA. Socialists will only grow into a mass force capable of leading a majority of New York’s working class if DSA acts as a lever to organize workers on a wider scale to fight for their interests. To win the key demands of Zohran’s campaign will require building a mass movement including tens of thousands who are not yet socialists or members of DSA. By organizing and activating working people on a wider scale, socialists can help the most serious working-class fighters draw socialist conclusions.
In fact, it is vital that NYC-DSA carve out wider influence among Zohran’s base by coming forward with concrete and constructive proposals for next steps, as Blanc did, that meet the moment and will help the movement to win. NYC-DSA should reach out to Mamdani and try to bring him on board, but if he is not willing to support such efforts, NYC-DSA should be willing to take the initiative and argue independently for what is needed.
So far, neither NYC-DSA nor the official Mamdani campaign have raised proposals along the lines of Blanc’s for how to concretely engage Zohran’s base in a sustained and organized mass campaign. In various media interviews, NYC-DSA leaders have, to their credit, put greater emphasis on the need for an ongoing movement after the election than Mamdani himself has. Speaking to City & State on July 11, NYC-DSA co-chair Grace Mausser outlined their strategy to push Governor Hochel and the legislature to allow New York City to raise taxes on the rich:
Obviously, the mayor is not a legislator in Albany. So to move the pieces that need to be moved, both on legislators and to create pressure on the governor, that’s going to require thousands of people to be working in concert.[14]
Masseur, a member of Socialist Majority Caucus, placed emphasis on building a coalition with labor leaders and other progressive forces to win Mamdani’s core demands: “all the groups backing [Mamdani] know this, that he can’t do it alone, and he’s an organizer, so he doesn’t want to,” said Mausser. “That means having regular communication with other groups who have the ability to mobilize people outside of City Hall.”
Building a broad labor-community coalition to fight for Mamdani’s platform will be absolutely vital. However, without simultaneously building up a politically independent mass campaign, without a systematic approach to raising class-struggle and socialist consciousness within Mamdani’s wider base, reliance on powerful labor and political leaders can function as a transmission belt for liberal establishment pressure into DSA and Mamdani’s administration.
Most NYC unions, for example, endorsed Cuomo over Mamdani in the primary. Only after Mamdani’s upset primary win are they now moving behind him. This should be welcomed and celebrated, but it should also serve as a sharp reminder that the politics of most union leaders remains highly cautious and conservative. Many who endorse Mamdani today may also endorse Governor Hochul’s re-election campaign in 2026.
That’s why it’s not enough that DSA leaders emphasize, in general terms, the need for an ongoing movement beyond the election. Without a more concrete plan to cohere and politically educate a mass base far larger than NYC-DSA itself – along the lines proposed by Eric Blanc – there remains a serious risk that NYC-DSA could find itself reduced to a second-tier power in the wider governing coalition around Mamdani.
More critically, while DSA leaders may emphasize the need for an ongoing movement, this has not been sufficiently emphasized by Mamdani himself, who has a dramatically larger platform and greater authority in the eyes of working-class New Yorkers. To read his website and most of his communications, the implicit message has been: “Elect me, and my administration will deliver for you.” A principled socialist approach would instead say: “Elect me, and together we’ll build the mass movement to win.” While Bernie Sanders’ campaigns ultimately failed to transition into an ongoing mass movement, his slogan of “Not Me, Us” alongside his promise to be the “Organizer in Chief” if elected president captured this idea brilliantly. While Mamdani has positioned himself to Sanders’ left on many questions, his messaging on this issue is weaker.
In his primary night victory speech – his most-watched speech up to that point – Zohran highlighted the volunteer-powered grassroots character of his campaign, but he did not prepare the wider working class for the fierce opposition NYC billionaires and establishment forces would mount against his popular agenda. He did not give direction to his 50,000 volunteers on the need to stay organized beyond the election, to join DSA, and build an ongoing mass movement.
This is a decisive issue – the difference between a strategy for winning Mamdani’s platform and expanding working-class power versus a strategy that, good intentions aside, collapses into “co-governance” with capital. Without systematically preparing Mamdani’s mass base – politically and organizationally – for the inevitable confrontation with the city council, the governor, and Wall Street, the administration risks disarming its own supporters before the most important fights even begin.
The word “socialism” did not appear once in the speech, even though the media continues to regularly label him a democratic socialist. This leaves it up to outlets like The New York Times to define the term,[15] rather than using the big national stage on election night to, at least briefly, own the socialist label and connect it to Mamdani’s popular platform and vision. The critical question isn’t just about rhetoric; it is about building an independent political organization, and translating Mamdani’s huge base into a class-conscious fighting machine rather than demobilizing them after the election.
A Socialist in Charge of the NYPD
A looming question facing both NYC-DSA and Mamdani is how to manage the New York Police Department – a larger and better equipped force than Japan’s military (and the militaries of most other nations). The July 11 City & State article offers a preview:
The DSA is committed to fighting for Mamdani’s platform – which, after all, its members helped write – but [NYC-DSA Co-Chair] Mausser also recognizes that there will inevitably be points of tension between the organization and a Mayor Mamdani.
While Mamdani is by far the furthest left Democratic nominee in recent history, his politics on some issues are still to the right of the [DSA’s]. This is especially clear when it comes to the New York City Police Department; Mamdani has said that police officers play a vital role in public safety and called for keeping the NYPD’s headcount at its current level, while many DSA members are police abolitionists and the organization has called for defunding the NYPD. If Mamdani opts to keep NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch in her current position, as The New York Times recently reported he might, it would upset much of his socialist base.[16]
Leaving aside the debate within DSA over whether “defund” and “abolition” should be raised as campaign slogans (I don’t think so), the question of who Mamdani appoints to head the NYPD is a critical one. If Mamdani retains the existing Commissioner, appointed by the incumbent mayor and ex-cop Eric Adams, Zohran will sooner or later be forced to take responsibility for the endemic racism and violence of the NYPD. Inevitably, the NYPD will be used to repress future protests against ICE and US backing for Israel’s genocide, or potentially the fight to win Mamdani’s own platform. More broadly, the NYPD represents the sharpest edge of an entrenched state machinery that will seek to slow walk, sabotage, or undermine every serious effort to challenge the capitalist elite that dominates NYC.
NYC-DSA should urge Mamdani to fire Commissioner Jessica Tisch, putting in a leader with a proven track record of fighting for fundamental, structural reforms to the NYPD. This should be done in a smart way, picking and timing fights that can be won, but Mamdani needs to make absolutely clear to his supporters that he plans to challenge the endemic corruption, racism, and repressive character of the police. He will be in a far better position to wage that fight early, fresh from an electoral victory while the elite opposition remains in disarray, rather than be forced into a confrontation under less favorable conditions.
Effectively taking on the NYPD would require Mamdani and NYC-DSA to energetically reframe debates around public safety. Calls for a youth jobs program – like the proven model advanced by the Richmond, CA Progressive Alliance – funding for mental health services, housing for the homeless, and other anti-poverty programs would be critical.[17] This must be connected with clear proposals to crack down on the rampant police brutality and racism at the core of the NYPD. Mamdani could demand the NYPD be brought under democratic oversight and control through an elected community oversight board with full powers to review and change the policies, priorities, and procedures of the NYPD. The NYPD Strategic Response Group, which has been responsible for brutalizing protestors, must be disbanded.
There is no denying that public safety is a difficult terrain for the left and a favorable one for the right in this political moment. Mamdani was right to focus on other issues in his campaign. His liberal advisors are, no doubt, warning Zohran that picking a fight with the NYPD would inevitably provoke a reaction from the powerful police union and their many political allies. It would expose Mamdani to attack if there is a real or perceived uptick in crime. But the idea that such attacks can be dodged by maintaining the current commissioner is utopian. Attempting to avoid a fight with the NYPD leadership simply hands Mandani’s ruling-class opposition the opportunity to determine the timing and terrain of inevitable confrontations.
Unfortunately, the early indications are that Mamdani is pursuing a strategy of accommodation with the NYPD. This is fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of socialism and involves major political risks for the movement behind him.
How will the leadership of NYC-DSA handle this scenario? Will the chapter adopt an independent position, finding positive and constructive ways for members to call Mamdani in, to exert pressure on him to change course? Or will NYC-DSA leaders try to downplay the dispute and work to prevent members from raising their disagreements publicly?
Citing past explosive public debates within DSA after New York representatives Jamal Bowman and AOC took positions sharply at odds with democratic socialism, the City & State article reports that “DSA considers Mamdani one of its own, which means that political disputes may be worked out behind closed doors rather than turning into a damaging public spectacle.”[18] NYC-DSA co-chair Mausser elaborated further:
He has been a DSA member for nearly a decade. He’s been deeply involved in the chapter. He’s been an elected leader in DSA … therefore, disputes, problems, things like that, we make every attempt to deal with them internally before we turn to publicly tearing down one another.[19]
This is a healthy approach as far as it goes. Certainly every effort should be made to communicate and align the political approach of NYC-DSA and a future Mamdani administration. Where important disagreements arise, it will be far better to negotiate and decide if, when, and how these disagreements make their way into a hostile media environment. However, the City & State article clearly implies that if Mamdani fails to replace NYPD commission Tisch, NYC-DSA leadership hopes to keep their disagreements “behind closed doors.” If this is indeed their approach it seems destined to backfire. Whether it happens immediately or after the next racist police murder, DSA members (and many others!) will speak out in disorganized and explosive ways if their leadership fails to offer a proactive public push urging Mamdani to hold the NYPD accountable.
The central issue, of course, is not about managing internal disputes in DSA. The main task for socialists is to build movement power for policies that advance working-class interests, while avoiding both opportunist and ultra-left mistakes. In the end, there is no path for mayor Mamdani to avoid a confrontation with the NYPD – certainly not if he aims to also call on working people to get organized on a mass scale to fight for their interests. Movements of working people cannot be turned on and off like tap water. Even if Mamdani and DSA aim to (correctly) prioritize mass struggle on universal economic demands, these struggles will inevitably spill over into fights against the deep structural racism built into the fabric of New York’s criminal justice system.
Transforming the Democratic Party?
Running on the Democratic Party ballot line, while a correct tactic at this stage in New York primaries, risks embedding the socialist project within a political machine that is one of the two pillars of capitalist rule in the country. It creates endless pressure to moderate, to build alliances with “progressive” capitalists, and to subordinate the socialist agenda to the broader goal of “defeating the right,” which inevitably means watering down any real challenge to the system.
At the 2022 Convention of NYC-DSA, state representative Mamdani distinguished himself by signing onto the excellent “1-2-3-4 Plan to Build a Party-like Structure.”[20] The resolution, designed to redirect NYC-DSA electoral work toward a clear policy of political independence from the Democratic Party, became the central debate at the Convention and set the tone for national debates in DSA. It emphasized that “our candidates should all explicitly, publicly, and prominently identify as ‘democratic socialists,’ including on their literature and mailings” and “will downplay their identification as a Democrat as much as possible.” While allowing for using the Democratic ballot line, the resolution was seen as part of DSA’s “dirty break” strategy of preparing the ground for building a new mass party for working people.
Backed by Bread & Roses and other left caucuses in DSA, the 1-2-3-4 Plan was sharply opposed by the leadership of NYC-DSA, comrades primarily grouped around Socialist Majority Caucus and Groundwork. Of NYC-DSA’s eight elected state representatives, Mamdani was the only one to back the 1-2-3-4 Plan. In the end, Convention delegates voted down the proposal by a 2 to 1 margin.
Unfortunately, during the mayoral primary Mamdani did the exact opposite of what the 1-2-3-4 Plan argued for, claiming the Democrats as “our party.” Echoing the strategic approach of AOC and Sanders, Zohran framed his campaign as a fight to transform the Democrats from a party of big business into a party of working people.
Following his primary victory, Mamdani’s team are further embedding themselves into the Democratic Party. In early July the campaign hired Jeffrey Lerner as their new communications director. He is “a former political director of the Democratic National Committee and senior Senate aide,” according to the New York Times.[21] Lerner replaces Andrew Epstein, who has a deep history working for DSA candidates. Epstein explained the move by saying “We are growing, we are maturing as a campaign.”
To be clear, Mamdani and his campaign do sharply criticize the corporate leadership of the Democratic Party. But that is an easy and popular thing to do in the present moment when the Democratic base is furious and impatient with the ineffectiveness of the leaders at fighting Trump. Nowhere did Zorhan’s campaign raise a deeper-going critique of the Democratic Party as a fundamentally capitalist institution or any perspective of laying the groundwork for a new left party fighting for the interests of the working class both at the ballot box and far beyond.
This is not merely an omission. Mamdani has repeatedly referred to the Democratic Party as “our party” and declared that his campaign is offering a model for the Democratic Party to win back the support of workers, young people, and others alienated by its pro-corporate leadership. This is an especially hard-to-justify policy in a place like New York, where fusion voting laws make it relatively easy to launch a new ballot line while still being able to run in the Democratic primary as well (just as Cuomo did!).[22]
Many in DSA will justify this approach to the Democratic Party as necessary to win elections. But given the popular anger and disappointment, would it really have cost Zohran votes to adopt a united front approach with progressive Democrats rather than fully embracing the party himself? His message could instead be: “We stand in solidarity with every effort to transform the corporate-controlled Democratic Party to instead advance the needs of working people. Our focus, and our invitation to progressive Democrats, is to join together with us to build a powerful political movement of working people to push the pro-corporate Democrats on city council and the state government to vote through our demands for an affordable city. To build that power we believe working people need to get organized and build our own mass membership political organization.”
“Co-Governing” with Capital or Building a Movement?
The centerpiece of a principled socialist strategy is to use the mayor’s office as a bully pulpit for the class struggle and to organize Mamdani’s mass base into a politically independent fighting force. This means consistently using mayoral speeches, press conferences, and executive actions to focus on raising the level of consciousness and organization of working people. It means making it clear that the mayor cannot deliver change alone; only a mass movement of organized tenants, workers, and community activists can force the hand of the establishment and win the city working people deserve.
The goal should be to transform the mayor’s office into an organizing center to build a mass movement aimed at shattering the political power of New York’s billionaire class. Success would require a systematic approach to organize, educate, and expand Mamdani’s mass base into an effective fighting movement. While there are never guarantees of victory, this strategy has the potential to deliver major reforms and galvanize a wider socialist movement in the US with international repercussions.
The national enthusiasm for Mamdani’s victory could be translated into a national solidarity campaign in his administration’s looming fight against Wall Street, the Trump administration, and corporate Democrats. After all, why should working-class New Yorkers limit their movement to one city when global finance capital and national political forces are arrayed against them? Fifteen years after Occupy Wall Street helped ignite a decade-long global wave of revolt, the potential exists today for a class-struggle Mamdani administration to inspire a new wave of struggle.
Mamdani’s administration and NYC-DSA could be dramatically strengthened if they manage to nationalize the fight to win free childcare for all, rent control and a mass expansion of affordable social housing, free, high-quality mass transit, and taxing the rich to pay for it all. DSA chapters across the country could be strengthened if our flagship chapter, NYC-DSA, acted as not only a model of electoral success, but also as an organizing center for nationally coordinated campaigns.
There are, unfortunately, far more models of left-wing city governments choosing the path of accommodation to capital rather than class struggle. But as Mamdani’s team prepares to govern the center of global capital into the twilight years of neo-liberalism, they would do well to study the Marxist-led Liverpool City Council who battled Margaret Thatcher at the dawn of the neoliberal era.[23]
In England in the early 1980s, working-class voters elected left-wing Labour councils to power in urban centers across the country to battle Thatcher’s brutal austerity program. Within this wider process, the Liverpool City Council stood out, with seasoned Marxists in the Militant Tendency of the Labour Party elected to lead the fight. Through organizing mass demonstrations and general strikes, by bringing organized labor into active struggle, and by coordinating their fight nationally, for five years the Liverpool City Council not only blocked Thatcher’s budget cuts from taking effect, but actually expanded public sector benefits.
The starting point for the socialist council in Liverpool was clarity that even small reforms would not be won by the formal power of elected office but would require mass mobilizations coordinated through democratic working-class organizations. While most cities were forced to accept cuts, Liverpool hired 1,000 more public sector workers and built new recreation centers, public parks, nursery schools, and thousands of new high-quality public housing units. Over four election cycles, the Militant-led Labour Party expanded its vote each time.
Their eventual defeat only came from the courts, who ruled that their anti-austerity budget was illegal. Without losing any election, and leaving both a built legacy and an inspiring political example, the 47 leaders of the Liverpool City Council were removed from power by a court in 1987 after losing their appeal in the House of Lords. The political space for this undemocratic legal attack was not inevitable. It was only made possible by the conservative Labour leaders’ generalized failure to fight Thatcherism: their failure to back the 1984-85 miners strike which allowed Thatcher to deliver a crushing blow to the British working class, and their failure to organize a united front of local Labour councils refusing to implement Thatchers’ cuts following the example of Liverpool.
Prospects for Negotiating a Middle Path
In the final analysis, Mamdani faces a stark choice between co-governing with capital or class struggle. All indications suggest Mamdani’s and the leadership of NYC-DSA will attempt, at least initially, to find a third path of balancing between these strategic poles. Such a balancing act, while deeply unstable in the long run, stands a chance of delivering enough positive reforms to maintain Mamdani’s popular standing, at least for a period.
The rushing river of real-life politics, of course, is full of ebbs and flows, twists and turns, which complicate even the most accurate theoretical schemas. Water eventually makes its way to the sea, but not always in a straight line.
For example, if Trump escalates attacks on NYC this could, ironically, offer more political space for a Mayor Mamdani to negotiate a temporary truce with the Democratic Party’s corporate establishment. Combined with organized pressure from below, this negotiated truce could include some partial reforms (like Hochul and the state legislature allowing NYC to raise taxes to expand public childcare and make buses free). In this way, Mamdani may be able to avoid, in the short term, an all-out clash with business elites.
To be clear, such tactical negotiations – taking advantage of splits in the ruling class – would make sense as part of a wider strategy of building “a mass movement aimed at shattering the political power of New York’s billionaire class.” Such a negotiated truce can be fully justified if it is used to buy time, to systematically organize and educate a fighting working-class movement, and to build sufficient power for the bigger class confrontations to come.
The central danger, however, is that Mamdani and DSA leadership become convinced that it is possible to triangulate indefinitely, as a strategy rather than a tactic. Sooner or later, events out of Mamdani’s control – a recession, a spike in violent crime, racist police killings, pressure from the municipal bond markets, or a capital strike – will force hard choices. Any initial or partial truce established with corporate Democrats in this moment of triumph and strength for Mamdani will be betrayed the moment Governor Hochul and big business see a fresh opening to attack.
Managing the Housing Crisis
The difference between a reformist and a revolutionary approach is not about whether we fight for reforms, but how we fight for them and with what ultimate goal. A look at what it will take to tackle New York City’s catastrophic housing crisis helps illustrate this. The median rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan soared to over $5,500 per month by most estimates, a figure that places decent housing far beyond the reach of the majority of the city’s working class. Fifty-five percent of New York tenants are officially rent burdened.[24] That’s 1,196,100 households that are rent burdened, paying over 30% of their income on housing, with a full third paying over 50% of their income on rent.
Mamdani’s signature demand, to “Freeze the Rent,” is a brilliant slogan and a vital, achievable reform. Unlike his other core demands, as mayor, Mamdani should have the power to freeze rent for around one million rent-stabilized apartments, roughly half of all rentals in the city. However, the limits of this demand within the capitalist system are also apparent. While freezing rent for nearly half of NYC tenants – as mayor Bill de Blasio temporarily did in 2015, 2016, and 2020 – would be a major victory and a reversal of the pro-landlord policies of the Adams administration, it does not address the millions of tenants in unregulated units and leaves already-too-high rents in place.
A truly universal rent control system that lowered rents to affordable levels would provoke a massive backlash from the real estate industry – the most powerful political lobby in the city. Threats of a capital strike in response to Mamdani’s win are already circulating. Real estate moguls could halt new construction, refuse to maintain existing buildings, and plunge the city into a manufactured crisis.
A reformist approach accepts these capitalist property rights as immutable. It would seek to negotiate with developers, offering them tax breaks and other incentives to placate them. This would mean, ultimately, failing to reverse the housing affordability crisis for most New Yorkers and trying to tamp down working-class expectations for more. A revolutionary approach, in contrast, would mean honestly acknowledging that the sharp limits imposed by the private market cannot create affordable housing at scale and therefore making the case that the market itself must be replaced. Marxists should link the fight for a rent freeze to the transitional demand for a massive program of public housing construction and the expropriation of large, vacant corporate-owned properties, all to be placed under the democratic control of tenants themselves.
To his credit, Mandani’s platform promises that, “As Mayor, Zohran will put our public dollars to work and triple the City’s production” of affordable social housing, “constructing 200,000 new units over the next ten years.” Yet again his platform gives little indication of the massive fight required to win this campaign promise, and nowhere does his campaign spell out the need for a wider public takeover of the for-profit housing industry – a requirement to make housing affordable for most of New York’s 1,196,100 rent-burdened tenants.
From Victory to Power
The immense challenges facing a potential Mamdani administration are not a sign of some personal failing, but a reflection of a fundamental lesson of socialist history: the capitalist state is not a neutral tool waiting to be wielded by a new master. It is, as Marxists have long understood, the organized power of the ruling class. Executive office, in particular, is a minefield, designed to trap even the most well-intentioned leaders into managing a system of exploitation and oppression. To win even the modest reforms Zohran campaigned on will require confronting a capitalist class that has a political interest in seeing any independent working-class initiative fail, lest it inspire a broader challenge for power. The preparations for this fight, both political and practical, must be a central task for the entire socialist movement.
In this context, the role of socialists and Marxists within DSA is not to act as cheerleaders, nor as sectarian critics from the sidelines. Our task is to be the most effective and dedicated fighters in the struggle to win Mamdani’s platform, while simultaneously being the most consistent advocates for a strategy of mass mobilization and working-class political independence. When the immense pressure to moderate and compromise arrives – transmitted through the media, corporate Democrats, and even well-meaning allies in the labor movement – we must be ready with serious, viable, and timely proposals that chart a path forward based on class struggle, not class collaboration. Marxist ideas will win a mass audience only if we can prove in practice that they are the most effective guide to winning concrete victories for working people.
Zohran Mamdani’s victory is an enormous achievement and a testament to the power of a class-struggle message. It presents an unprecedented opportunity to learn, debate, and gain invaluable experience in the fight for political power. We must celebrate this breakthrough and engage in the coming battles with all our energy. But the ultimate goal is not simply to win a rent freeze or free childcare. We must base ourselves on the clarity that without a socialist transformation of society all reforms are temporary and will be snatched away during the inevitable ebbs of our movement’s power. Therefore our goal must be to use Mamdani’s win, to use the fight for these essential reforms, to build the independent organization, class-consciousness, and fighting capacity of the working class, preparing it for the more decisive struggles to come. That is the essence of principled socialist politics, and it is the historic task before us.
Ty Moore is a member of Tacoma DSA and the Executive Director of Tacoma for All, a tenant rights organization that won the strongest protections for renters in Washington State. He previously worked as a union organizer and was the National Director of 15 Now, among other organizing projects. He is part of the Labor Power Publications team who produced this book.
[1] Ross Barkan, “If Zohran Mamdani Wins, Then What?,” The New York Times, July 9, 2025, nytimes.com/2025/07/09/opinion/zohran-mamdani-mayor-power.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Peter Sterne, “Mamdani promised to tax the rich. DSA is already mobilizing to make that happen,” City & State, July 11, 2025, cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/07/mamdani-promised-tax-rich-dsa-already-mobilizing-make-happen/406662/
[4] Kellen Browning and Maya King, “Can Mamdani’s Energetic Campaign Be a Blueprint for Democrats?,” The New York Times, June 26, 2025, nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/mamdani-campaign-democrats.html
[5] Bernie Sanders, “Will the Democrats learn from Zohran Mamdani’s victory?,” The Guardian, June 27, 2025, theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/25/democrats-learn-zohran-mamdani-victory
[6] Eric Blanc, “The Oligarchy Is Not Invincible,” The Call, June 26, 2025, socialistcall.com/2025/06/26/the-oligarchy-is-not-invincible/
[7] Ibid.
[8] Sid C., “Run Zohran?,” Socialist Tribune, August 26, 2024, socialisttribune.substack.com/p/run-zohran?r=1xlnl7
[9] Ibid.
[10] Eric Blanc, x.com, June 26, 2025, x.com/_ericblanc/status/1938329593670242657?t=AGtel0w-jkB_WkkUfxxksg&s=19
[11] Eric Blanc, June 27, 2025, x.com/_ericblanc/status/1938657020875342211?t=AGtel0w-jkB_WkkUfxxksg&s=19
[12] Cliff Connolly, June 27, 2025, x.com/CliffConnolly/status/1938625282346570190
[13] wild_rover, @IsaacBarleycorn, “this is dsa’s job, and it doesn’t mean throwing people into constant mobilization, but bringing people into spaces where you can think and act politically, and learn how to build the independent working class infrastructure that can beat the rich,” June 26, 2025, x.com/IsaacBarleycorn/status/1938420047975764274?t=F-wVaUzKASeOtRHcLQDHSg&s=19
[14] Peter Sterne, “Mamdani promised to tax the rich. DSA is already mobilizing to make that happen,” City & State NY, July 11, 2025, cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/07/mamdani-promised-tax-rich-dsa-already-mobilizing-make-happen/406662/
[15] Kellen Browning, “Zohran Mamdani Says He’s a Democratic Socialist. What Does That Mean?,” The New York Times, June 25, 2025, nytimes.com/2025/06/25/us/politics/what-is-democratic-socialism.html
[16] Peter Sterne, “Mamdani promised to tax the rich. DSA is already mobilizing to make that happen,” City & State NY, July 11, 2025, cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/07/mamdani-promised-tax-rich-dsa-already-mobilizing-make-happen/406662/
[17] Manish Khanal, “Richmond expands job opportunities year-round for city youth,” richmondconfidential.org, July 30, 2021, richmondconfidential.org/2021/07/30/richmond-youthworks-jobs/
[18] Peter Sterne, “Mamdani promised to tax the rich. DSA is already mobilizing to make that happen,” City & State NY, July 11, 2025, cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/07/mamdani-promised-tax-rich-dsa-already-mobilizing-make-happen/406662/
[19] ibid
[20] Submitted by: Neal Meyer, “Resolution: The 1-2-3-4 Plan to Build a Party-like Structure,” NYC-DSA, convention.socialists.nyc/member-portal/october-2022/proposals/the-1234-plan-to-build-a-partylike-structure/
[21] Nicholas Fandos, “Zohran Mamdani Expands Campaign Team, Hiring Veteran Democrat,” The New York Times, July 9, 2025, nytimes.com/2025/07/09/nyregion/mamdani-communications-jeffrey-lerner.html
[22] David V., “Zohran Mamdani Should Run Third-Party in the General Election for New York City Mayor,” socialistcall.com, June 9, 2025, socialistcall.com/2025/06/09/zohran-mamdani-third-party/
[23] Peter Taaffe and Tony Mulhearn, “Liverpool – A City that Dared to Fight,” socialistparty.org.uk/party-media/socialist-party-books-and-pamphlets-online/liverpool-a-city-that-dared-to-fight/
[24] Oksana Mironova, Samuel Stein, “Our Fast Analysis of the 2021 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey,” cssny.org, October 12, 2023, cssny.org/news/entry/our-fast-analysis-of-the-2021-new-york-city-housing-and-vacancy-survey
