Zohran Mamdani’s election as Mayor of New York has sparked intense discussion. Was it a small-scale revolution, or merely the system producing a new “hero”? Has the U.S. really shifted to the left? A sizable portion of the public—along with some of the country’s most influential media outlets—insists that Mamdani is a “communist.” The American right, much like its counterparts elsewhere, still seems to believe that scaring people with the specter of communism is an effective strategy.
They called Obama a “communist” too. The Democrats are no different from the Republicans in that regard. Before the last presidential election, even Trump was accused of being a “communist” and a “Russian agent.” Truly remarkable.
Two of the last three presidents were supposedly communists, Putin is already one, and China—well, that’s self-explanatory.
So what happened? Wasn’t communism supposed to be a fantasy?
We often say that anti-communism is a form of foolishness; here’s yet another example. These people genuinely think that accusing each other of communism constitutes ideological struggle.
One of the most striking aspects of Mamdani’s victory is this: despite all the noise, a politician branded as a “communist” managed to defeat his opponents in America’s wealthiest—and arguably most important—city (even if that wealth is concentrated in a small minority).
Of course, Zohran Mamdani is not a communist. Nor will I enter a debate about whether he’s a leftist; I’ve had enough of hearing “you never like anyone” for now.
What matters is not Mamdani’s ideological label, but the depth of the social and political crisis currently unfolding in the United States. This crisis is, above all, economic. The deep frustration felt by the impoverished and insecure segments of society during the Biden years paved the way for Trump; meanwhile, those who realized that employment-centered policies do not deliver social justice turned away from Trump in anger. Trump’s attacks on civil liberties, his racist stance toward immigrants, and his campaign of repression against Palestinian solidarity movements have all fueled an increasingly radical popular backlash.
In short, the monopoly-driven system of the United States—long comfortable under the protection of its two-party structure—has in recent years begun to falter under the same crisis afflicting many advanced capitalist countries. This crisis stems partly from the rapid shifting of balances within the ruling class, which has generated internal tensions within the system, and partly from intensifying international competition for hegemony, which has pushed capitalist states to act more brutally toward their own working classes—producing deep ideological and political tremors.
All of these actors suffer from a crisis of credibility. As the political shelf-life of leaders shortens, more and more air must be pumped into the balloon to create a new figure capable of convincing the masses. But that’s difficult—and when balloons are overinflated, they burst one after another.
Today, mainstream U.S. politics is paralyzed from top to bottom. The function of mainstream politics is to soften, soothe, and channel social discontent. At this point, there is no actor capable of controlling the increasingly broad and multilayered dissatisfaction on behalf of the established order.
It would be unfair to claim that Mamdani was deliberately prepared by the system’s actors to fill this vacuum. Rather, Mamdani is a product of that vacuum—and he may well deepen the crisis further.
Someone who argues that capitalism can be improved, that the market economy can be reformed on humane foundations, poses no threat to capitalism itself. But when such a person—or someone with such rhetoric—is elected mayor of the most important city in the United States, it certainly threatens the comfort to which American politics is accustomed.
Under normal circumstances, a mayor like Mamdani would forget some promises, filter others through “realistic approach,” and the system would continue functioning as usual. There are precedents for this.
According to Aslı Aydıntaşbaş (a liberal journalist from Turkey), we needn’t look far for an example. In İstanbul, she notes, a style of municipal politics that appeals to the poor has long taken root. Writing in Politico on October 20, Aydıntaşbaş argues that the policies Erdoğan pursued as Mayor of Istanbul resemble Mamdani’s promises, and that İmamoğlu has carried on this tradition.
Interestingly, the AKP circles are as enthusiastic about Mamdani’s victory as parts of the “left.” Naturally, they highlight his Muslim identity; for now, they don’t seem bothered that he’s Shi’a. Aydıntaşbaş even points out another shared element: a focus on easing the suffering of the poor.
But no one’s suffering in Turkey has eased.
It won’t ease in the U.S. either.
Capitalism cannot be improved.
So what will happen?
Probably not much—at least not from Mamdani himself. On his father’s side, he’s already connected to Soros. The fact that he posed for a “victory” photo with Soros’s son immediately after the election should send a clear enough message. Granted, the initiative probably came from Alex Soros, who posted the photo. Soros Jr., who openly supported Mamdani throughout the campaign, smiling beside him after the supposed “revolution,” was clearly sending a reassuring signal to the establishment: don’t worry. And what a photo it was—someone unfamiliar with them might mistake Mamdani for the wealthy heir, and Alex for the protected politician!
Sincerity and friendship are, of course, another matter entirely.
As I said, Mamdani himself won’t pose a problem for the U.S. The real question is: what will be done about the hundreds of thousands who supported Mamdani despite all the campaigning and counter-propaganda? That is the real issue. The break with mainstream politics continues, and since the U.S. lacks Europe’s social-democratic tradition, creating space for a “system left” capable of absorbing this break will be extremely difficult.
The key question is whether a strong revolutionary actor capable of using this governance crisis will emerge in the U.S. and elsewhere. Idolizing Mamdani or building strategy around him would mean wasting a genuine opportunity. In that case, the Soroses—and the entire established order—would win once again.
At the same time, claiming that Mamdani is merely a “project” leads to the same dead end. Revolutionary politics in the U.S. cannot proceed from the assumption that the system acts with such deep strategic foresight. To argue that Mamdani has been deliberately put forward as a remedy for the crisis is to underestimate both the depth of that crisis and the nature of U.S. imperialism itself.
