Should Socialists Support Zohran Mamdani?

Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City has caused excitement on the left due to his democratic-socialist politics and his support for Palestine. Such excitement has historically led to disorientation and disillusionment when reformist Democrats — such as AOC and Brandon Johnson — inevitably betray the left. Revolutionaries must retain our opposition to all Democrats and executives of the capitalist state.

by | Jun 26, 2025

The working class in the United States today has hardly anything resembling a real choice when it comes to voting. Practically every election, from the federal level down to the municipal, is just a contest between two openly corporate, pro-capitalist candidates, either a Democrat or a Republican. This means that, when it comes to elections for political office, revolutionaries in the US usually have simple advice for the working class: don’t vote. (We do occasionally weigh in on how to vote on ballot measures.)

Occasionally, however, certain politicians create a level of excitement on the left and differentiate themselves from the grey mass of uninspiring corporate hacks. One such politician today is Zohran Mamdani, who yesterday won the primary election to be the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City.

Mamdani is, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and his platform includes some progressive reforms including a rent freeze in New York. He has also achieved acclaim on the left with his support for Palestine — especially his refusal to say he would visit Israel as mayor. The right, on the other hand, has made disgusting racist and Islamophobic attacks on him, branding him as a “jihadist terrorist” and “a radical, antisemitic socialist.” Trump called him “a 100% Communist Lunatic” — something we only wish were true.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, who have provided left cover for strikebreaking and genocide in recent years, are prominent examples of this pattern of betrayal.

When juxtaposed with every other New York mayoral candidate practically swearing blood oaths to the genocidal settler colony, Mamdani can seem quite inspiring by comparison. But he also holds that Israel has a right to existsometimes with qualification, sometimes without — and thus is still fundamentally Zionist.

Politicians like Mamdani require special attention for analysis precisely because of the excitement they generate on the left. Workers and the oppressed are very often betrayed by politicians like Mamdani. Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, who have provided left cover for strikebreaking and genocide in recent years, are prominent and obvious examples of this pattern, but there are many, many more on this list.

Most political tendencies on the left are confused about why this cycle of betrayal happens so often. Even many so-called “Marxists” end up supporting ostensibly progressive candidates who later turn out to be disappointments just like the rest. So how do we identify which candidates deserve our support, and which don’t?

The tragedy of Brandon Johnson, or why all Democrats means all Democrats

Brandon Johnson’s electoral campaign for mayor of Chicago in 2023 mirrors Zohran Mamdani’s. Both politicians caused a great deal of excitement on the left within their respective cities. Both politicians ran as Democrats, made big, progressive promises, and claimed they were different from the other “corporate” politicians in their party. As the subheader suggests, this is not a good sign for Mamdani’s campaign.

Before running for mayor, Johnson was a prominent activist who fought against school closures and later went on to hold the position of Cook County Commissioner as a Democrat. During his mayoral campaign, he initially won over the left by promising progressive taxation on the richest in Chicago to fund mental health clinics, schools, affordable housing, and many other social programs.

The enthusiastic support Johnson received from the broad left ultimately ended up winning him the election. What did he do upon entering office? He increased the police budget, unleashed the cops on unhoused people, and evicted migrant families from shelters, all within less than a year of becoming mayor!

Despite the claims of the DSA, the Democrats are structurally immune to reform from within and popular, progressive demands. Those who attempt to reform the Democrats usually find themselves reformed instead — from progressive activists into defenders of the status quo.

Perhaps more catastrophically, since the Chicago left had largely supported Johnson’s election, they were too confused and divided to oppose his attacks. The reformist elements which had supported him the most defended his actions, lest they admit their political failures. Those unwilling to stomach the betrayal were cut off from their traditional allies. So in the end, the “progressive” Johnson was able to attack Chicago’s working class and oppressed with minimal pushback from the left, where more obviously conservative politicians might have had to face enormous protests. If Mamdani is elected, the results will likely be similar.

Johnson’s betrayal was predictable. The main reason is that the Democratic Party is a capitalist party which represents the interests of the US ruling class. Since the economic and political interests of capitalists are diametrically opposed to that of workers, it follows that their political representatives would also be enemies of the working class. This is true of all politicians in the Democratic Party, regardless of their level, position, political rhetoric, or background.

The reformist left including the DSA has tried for almost a hundred years to reform the Democratic Party into a socialist or social-democratic party, and they have consistently failed. Despite the claims of the DSA, the Democrats are structurally immune to reform from within and to popular, progressive demands. Those who attempt to reform the Democrats usually find themselves reformed instead — from progressive activists into defenders of the status quo.

The real function of politicians like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Johnson, and Mamdani is to confuse and disarm the left. They give the impression that change is possible within the Democratic Party. They provide political cover for the horrible policies of their more openly conservative colleagues — even when that policy is genocide. Most importantly, they divert attention and resources away from efforts to found an independent party, which could actually threaten the status quo.

As always when it comes to capitalist political forces, revolutionaries must strive to maintain our political independence. The correct move for the left in Chicago would have been to reject Johnson’s candidacy from the beginning and to point out its fundamentally pro-capitalist nature before he was elected, rather than acting surprised that a Democrat would do what Democrats have historically always done. Regarding Mamdani, the correct move for the left in New York right now would essentially be the same.

The office matters too

Beyond the fundamentally pro-capitalist, anti-worker nature of the Democratic Party, there is another reason why revolutionaries cannot support Mamdani nor other campaigns like his: he is running for mayor.

Revolutionaries should not seek to manage capitalism nor support officials who enforce it.

When we debate whether to support a politician of any kind, we must ask ourselves what role that politician is likely to play based on the duties of their elected office. The mayor is the executive of the city government, and is thus tasked primarily with enforcing the law. Considering the laws are written by capitalists and their representatives, this means that in practice, the mayor will enforce the will of the local capitalist class, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter. The mayor also oversees the police, an inherently repressive institution tasked with defending capital and keeping workers and the oppressed in line. The mayor is thus the enemy of the left by their very function, regardless of their campaign’s class background.

Revolutionaries should not seek to manage capitalism nor support officials who enforce it. Concretely, this means that in the US, revolutionaries can only potentially support campaigns for legislative office; campaigns in the executive and judicial branches are off limits.

The case of Kshama Sawant

There are a narrow set of circumstances which permit revolutionaries to critically support certain electoral candidates, even when we have sharp disagreements with them. While there are analogous cases outside of the US, the best local, recent example is that of former Seattle city councillor Kshama Sawant.

Sawant was initially elected to Seattle City Council in 2014. She ran as a member of Socialist Alternative, independently of both the Democrats and Republicans. Her campaign was funded by Socialist Alternative’s dues and contributions from ordinary working-class people. While in office, she took only the pay of the median Seattleite and donated the rest of her salary to various working-class causes.

At her best, she consistently pushed for more for Seattle’s working class, in particular fighting against the persistent housing and cost-of-living crises the city’s residents have faced. In pushing for these reforms, Sawant refused to collaborate and acquiesce to the other Democrats on the city council. Instead, she drew the class line and exposed the local Democrats for the corporate hacks they really are. In these moments, Sawant demonstrated what it means to be a socialist in office.

The many gains that were made by Sawant, including the fight for a $15 minimum wage (back when that meant something), the Amazon Tax and numerous renter protections won her the support of her district’s working class. Despite her campaign’s limited finances and reliance on volunteers, she managed to beat Democrat after Democrat at election, and even defeated a recall election organized by tech billionaires and liberal politicians.

The revolutionary left in Seattle generally supported Sawant her whole time in office, and rightfully so. This is because the class basis of her campaign was working class, not capitalist or middle class.

Yet, Sawant’s record and politics are still far from desirable for a principled socialist. Notably, she voted to confirm Carmen Best, the police chief who would later go on to brutalize Black Lives Matter protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets. Her position on Palestine is also Zionist since it calls for a two-state solution (a socialist Israel and a socialist Palestine). When she and Socialist Alternative led efforts for reforms, they usually decided the specifics of what the demands would be in advance, and left little space for community engagement. Although both the local media and Sawant herself called her a revolutionary socialist, in reality she was fundamentally a reformist.

Despite these issues, the revolutionary left in Seattle generally supported Sawant her whole time in office, and rightfully so. This is because the class basis of her campaign was working class, not capitalist or middle class. Even though her political positions and choices were not always correct, when push came to shove, the movement could push her in the right direction whereas the Democrats remained intransigent. 

For example, even though Socialist Alternative very erroneously consider cops workers, during the George Floyd Uprising, Sawant was pressured by the movement and ultimately voted to defund the Seattle Police Department by 50 percent. None of the other Democrats on the city council voted in favor of the measure.

Sawant’s campaign embodies the elements required for a campaign worthy of the left’s support: independent from and in opposition to the capitalist parties, accountable to the working class, and within the legislative branch. Unfortunately, if we accept these conditions as the bare minimum for what it takes to support a campaign, then we must also accept that the vast majority of politicians are unworthy. This includes politicians like Mamdani and Johnson.

Kenneth G
Kenneth G (he/him) is a founding member of Firebrand and Seattle Revolutionary Socialists, and a former member of the International Socialist Organization.

Related Reading

Mamdani, the DSA, and the Reactionary Gravity of the Democrats

Mamdani, the DSA, and the Reactionary Gravity of the Democrats

The win by Zohran Mamdani in the New York City Democratic Party mayoral primaries has sent shockwaves across the United States. Many on the left, especially sections of the Palestine solidarity movement, have been jubilant, calling it an electoral vindication of...