Democratic Socialism: Revolution Without Revolution

On November 4th, the global left began to seriously rub its hands together. At that time, an immigrant, Muslim, former rapper, thirty-four-year-old (the youngest mayor in the last hundred years), and – democratic socialist took the helm of the world’s most important financial center, New York. Zohran Mamdani, as he himself calls it, easily won the election with policies that confirm stubbornly, even radically left promises – free public transport, raising the minimum wage, freezing utility and real estate prices, a new wave of ‘POS’ apartments, city-owned stores with ‘no profit and below inflated market prices’ (something like the American version of our Žabac), progressive taxation of the wealthy. Therefore, Mamdani is not at all a local topic. However, what we need above the local level first is to refine definitions, and then content. So, what exactly is democratic socialism? And where is the line between democratic socialism and social democracy/left center/socialism/communism?

Theory and practice say that the goal of democratic socialism (and socialism and communism) is to abolish the capitalist economic model, that is, capitalism as such. In this case, capitalism would be replaced by a system based on social ownership of the means of production, but within a democratic political system. Thus, democratic socialism, unlike Eastern European or Cuban socialism and communism, would be introduced peacefully, democratically, not through violent revolution.

It implies a gradual transition of ownership of the means of production from private hands to public control, whereby the state buys shares of private companies, initiates public works, and thus creates new jobs. The practical difference, therefore, in relation to socialism/communism is in the method of its introduction. Social democracy, on the other hand, accepts the market economy and capitalism as a foundation, but with a strong role of the state in regulating the economy, redistributing wealth through social programs and taxes, and protecting workers’ rights.

It Started with Sanders

However, before we clarify where the increasingly vocal left part of the world is heading, it is worth recalling that the door to democratic socialism was opened back in 2015 by Bernie Sanders (whose footsteps were later followed by the star of the American left Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez), a long-time independent senator who then began his campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Sanders emphasized, as liberal economist Mario Nakić explains on his website, that he is not a socialist but a ‘democratic socialist’.

He attracted media attention as a vocal critic of large corporations, government bailouts of the private sector, an inaccessible healthcare system for the poorer, and insufficient government spending on the socially vulnerable. However, closer observers understand that Sanders has never drawn parallels with, say, Venezuela or Cuba, which would be fitting for (democratic) socialists, nor has he ever called for the abolition of capitalism. Yes, he advocates Medicare for all, meaning that the state finances healthcare services for everyone from taxes, but he has never specified that the state should also be the provider. This, Nakić analyzes, is entirely in line with healthcare policies, for example, in Denmark and Sweden, where the state pays for citizens’ health check-ups from the budget but has left healthcare services to the private sector. Scandinavian countries, as modern examples of social democracy, practice low regulation of entrepreneurship and strong protection of private property, in addition to high taxes and a massive welfare state, which is roughly what Sanders aims for.

50 Shades of Left

Thus, Sanders theoretically presents himself as a democratic socialist, but in practice, he is actually a social democrat. It is hard to believe that he does not know the difference, but as a politician who wisely navigates between these two terms and two groups, he uses democratic socialism and social democracy as synonyms. He should therefore be blamed for a confused understanding of the terms, to which Mamdani has only added a pinch of weight. However, there is no doubt that he is somewhat further left than Sanders or Cortez (with Cortez being significantly further left than Sanders, she is, by definition, a true socialist, wanting guaranteed jobs created by the government, something like what the late Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela). So what can we read from these fifty shades of left? Mamdani has opposed American imperialism with his program (openly siding with Palestine, but that is to be expected from a Muslim Indian) and has written a program that is quite left for conservative America.

But! Although he advocates progressive taxes on wealth, free transport, and more affordable prices, Mamdani does not question production relations, nor does he call for the abolition of the capitalist system. He does not speak of collectivization or nationalization of private property, does not wave the idea of workers’ self-management, nor is his goal a classless society. The American Zoka tries to solve the market’s shortcomings through state intervention. And that is, both theoretically and practically – social liberalism, not socialism. After all, most Democrats and their bases are neither socialists nor liberals, although they are most often called such, the majority of members (and financiers) of that party are social democrats.

However, however they are called, Mamdani has won, among other things, because he spoke about socialist topics, about what the American bipartisan scene has been silent about for decades. About housing costs, miserable wages, human dignity, the right to affordable healthcare and housing. Gen Z simply sticks to such topics and people, so love for socialism certainly no longer sounds dangerous and punishable as it did in the 40s and 50s of the last century, during the persecution of American communists.

No Destruction of Capitalism

After all, analysts estimate that there is a whole ecosystem of left initiatives in the American digital and urban sphere that operate outside party structures – from local organizations that encourage tenant strikes, prevent evictions, and offer free kitchens to environmental groups that block fossil infrastructure projects to student and labor unions that have flourished in recent years. The time of fear of technology and artificial intelligence works in favor of democratic socialists, which is why Sanders has become more active. His team recently reported an estimate that artificial intelligence and automation could destroy nearly one hundred million jobs in the U.S. in the next decade. And the key problem, they conclude in the report, is that American workers do not receive their fair share of profits.

Their calculation states that productivity has increased by 150 percent in recent decades, corporate profits by over 370 percent, while the real wages of the average American worker have decreased by nearly 30 dollars a week. It is estimated that today, if wages had followed productivity, a fair minimum wage in the U.S. would be around 25 dollars – about three times more than the current 7.25 dollars. Every left idea takes root in such numbers. And in such an environment, Mamdani is undoubtedly a step further left (and a step further towards populism, but that is a separate story). Although a left victory in the heart of capitalism is no small thing, Mamdani, however he labels himself, will certainly not dismantle capitalism. And the burden is (for the left) that, castrated by LGBTQ and green issues, it has almost forgotten what real (democratic socialist) class struggle looks like.