Following the recent Democratic primary where Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani won it has lead me to asking a major question, should we endorse Democratic Socialists?
First I want to make this absolutely clear, I do not support electoralism and quite frankly I dont think its possible to reform capitalism out of existence.
The goal of supporting of Democratic Socialists is to promote those who would weaken capitalism but more importantly they wake people up to the class war. I hope that with Democratic Socialists gaining popularity it will create the material conditions that promote revolutionary thought.
However I fully understand if many people will strongly disagree as promoting any candidate gives legitimacy to a system of tyranny (to a certain degree). Thats why im asking all of you, I will be reading every comment here and carefully considering all of them.
I’m with you there, electoralism is doomed to fail but he seems really genuine and I still wish him all the best. Not sure whether I’d count that as an endorsement per se? I guess I would say I “endorse” him immediately doing something irrevocable and extreme, although liable to get him removed lol
I would love to see him do something so extreme the position of mayor in New York ceases to exist. Although I will have to settle for him improving material conditions.
The goal of supporting of Democratic Socialists is to promote those who would weaken capitalism but more importantly they wake people up to the class war. I hope that with Democratic Socialists gaining popularity it will create the material conditions that promote revolutionary thought.
IMO, Section J.2.7 of An Anarchist FAQ makes a pretty compelling argument against endorsing any politician as an anarchist.
For any Mamdani supporters scrolling my history: my non-endorsement of Mr. Mamdani for Mayor of New York is a principled objection to electioneering. Mr. Mamdani seems like a good socialist and incredibly decent man, and I wish him success in his activism even if we disagree on the necessity of the State.
Also the sight of a so-called “socialist” or “radical” government managing capitalism, imposing cuts, breaking strikes and generally attacking its supporters will damage the credibility of any form of socialism and discredit all socialist and radical ideas in the eyes of the population. If the experience of the Labour Government in Britain during the 1970s and New Labour after 1997 are anything to go by, it may result in the rise of the far-right who will capitalise on this disillusionment.
- see also: the Italian general election of 1921, and the weak liberalism it brought, which led to the Fascist March in 1922, which led to Mussolini.
- see also: most governments in Europe right now.
Rather than endorse people directly, it would help me to know what we stand for.
Then we can compare anyone against those values and see how well they align with us.
(Also helps with checking how well politicians stick to their promises. 2025 Mamdani might score 12 for 14, but what about 2027 Mamdani?)
The only thing really unifying this community is in its Anarchist beliefs with a few left wing libertarians thrown in. Im personally an Anarcho-Syndicalist and I cant really speak directly for anyone else.
i have two minimums: the socialist minimum (the broad front; groups i’d act together with), and the libertarian socialist minimum (groups i’d organise with).
the socialist minimum is:
- social ownership
- internationalism
- critical theory
if you aren’t for the negation of capitalism, private property, nationalism, imperialism and false consciousness: you’re not a socialist; you’re not a comrade.
the libertarian socialist minimum is:
- horizontalism
- self-determination
- prefiguration
if you aren’t for direct action and free association, or your means don’t match your ends: you’re not an anarchist; you’re not a friend.
i identify with social anarchism because it describes my approach to life, but i’ll broadly advocate for anything matching my libertarian minimum, and more broadly lend (critical) support for anything matching my socialist minimum.
within this frame, i feel that Zohran is a socialist (public utilities, social housing, city-owned grocers, BDS; a focus on improving the material conditions), but the focus on state-mediation (ex. rent control) over dual-power (tenant unions) makes me feel — aside from tugging the Overton window — that he’s more focused on relieving people than empowering them.
