New York City’s Mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, a self-described “democratic socialist,” has been widely criticized for policy proposals that may prove to be too impractical, too costly, and too likely to drive businesses and people away from the Big Apple. But others wonder what’s truly wrong with his ideas. They argue that American governments at all levels already provide numerous services, and that the Scandinavian social democracies seem to be free and prosperous, with basically contented citizenries. But those who see the American and Scandinavian models as harbingers of Mamdani’s prospective success overlook the fact that neither the United States nor the Scandinavian nations are socialistic, and hence are not good predictors of socialistic success. Either Mamdani will be able to implement his ideas at possibly ruinous cost, or he’ll fail to do so, and run the risk of betraying democratic socialism.
At the heart of the debate over socialism is the question of who should control the means by which goods and services are created, distributed, and priced. In America, state and local governments typically provide police and fire protection and public education, as well as other services. Stephenville, for example, produces, distributes, and sells water while contracting with private companies to supply electricity, collect and dispose of solid waste, and manage the city-owned wastewater treatment plant. States create and supervise state universities and local school districts. The United States government supplies Social Security, Medicare, and—jointly with the states—Medicaid.
But economists note that despite the myriad goods and services supplied by governments at all levels in America, we have not a socialistic economy but a “mixed economy” based primarily on capitalism and private enterprise, albeit with a strong public sector. In a purely socialistic society, however, “the people,” i. e., the government, own and operate the means of producing, distributing, and pricing EVERYTHING, including all food, all cars and trucks, all electronics—TVs, DVD players, computers—al consumer goods—clothing, cosmetics, etc., etc., etc.—EVERYTHING.
The more a political system is based on free market capitalism, the smaller the role the government plays in determining who gets what at what price. The production, distribution, and pricing evolve from the free play of the laws of supply and demand, with producers seeking to offer goods and services demanded by consumers at a price consumers are willing to pay. There is none of the central planning found in socialistic societies.
In a socialistic society, who gets what at what price is determined by government bureaucrats. And even the most well-meaning bureaucrats typically don’t know enough of what consumers want or how much they’re willing to pay. So, typically, the central planners produce more of what is not really wanted while creating shortages of what is wanted. Moreover, because a socialistic government has a monopoly on producing goods and services, it has less incentive to invest in quality, and its products are frequently inferior to those produced in a market environment in which producers must compete with each other to offer the best products at the lowest price to consumers.
The role government should play in the production and distribution of goods and services other than those traditionally produced in an American-style mixed economy is also at the heart of the distinction between “democratic socialism” and “social democracy.” It’s easy to understand how one can confuse the two concepts. The terms sound similar as are their goals and origins.
Both democratic socialism and social democracy originated as strains within the European socialist movement inspired by the writings of Karl Marx. Adherents of both held similar goals—less exploitation of workers, a more equal distribution of income regardless of one’s trade or profession, the narrowing and ultimate elimination of class distinctions, more social services—especially government provided pensions and health insurance—and a commitment to achieving these policies and others promoting “social justice” through peaceful and democratic means. In this last respect especially, both democratic socialists and social democrats rejected the sort of violence advocated and practiced by Marxist revolutionaries in Russia, China, and other parts of the world.
But while democratic socialists frequently maintain, as their goal, the acquisition of government ownership of production and distribution capacities, social democrats no longer do so. The economies of the Scandinavian countries are closer in structure to America’s mixed economy, although there are some differences. Scandinavian taxes are higher and finance more generous benefits than are to be found in America, frequently including mandatory paid leave for parents of newborns, more generous pensions, far cheaper health insurance programs, free higher education, etc., etc. But their governments nonetheless rely on capitalistic economics to supply the wealth to the people and the businesses, who are then taxed to finance the benefits. To date, the Scandinavian social democracies have achieved their successes precisely because they are NOT socialistic. Sweden, for example, has been described, with only slight irony, as a “free market welfare state.” Its Scandinavian neighbors can be described similarly.
To date, Mamdani, a democratic socialist but NOT a social democrat, has shown little regard for New York City’s private sector or understanding of the role the private sector plays in generating the wealth which, through taxation, finances government. His proposed policies include rent freezes, free bus service, and government owned and operated grocery stores, all to be paid through higher taxes. Indeed, he seems to have unlimited faith in what can be accomplished by government. “We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve,” he has said, “and no concern too small for it to care about.” But he does not seem to understand that his attempts at governance may drive away enough taxpayers, businesses, and jobs to bring about the failure of his administration’s programs.
Independent conservative columnist George Will wrote that he hoped Mamdani would be elected Mayor and thereby give the American people a refresher course in how bad socialism can truly be. Two of the most likely outcomes of his upcoming governance will be the failure of his policies, if implemented, to achieve the goals he’s promised, or the failure to secure the implementation of his polices in the first place, following long, drawn-out, contentious political battles. In either instance, whatever else his governance will provide, Mamdani will help create very interesting times to be followed by all interested in politics and government.
Was he humbled by New York’s open-minded, open-hearted embrace? Not in the least. He delivered a declaration of dominance: “To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.” Billionaires “can play by the same rules as the rest of us.” “We have toppled a political dynasty.” “We will put an end to the culture of corruption.” “We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” He declared a “new age.”
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018, and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment