Hacker News Reader

Comment by piker | Hacker News Reader

His policies are socialist. Some of us still perceive that as a bad thing.

I think the endless labelling of everything rightwingers don't like as "socialism" has backfired. A generation has been told that affordable food and housing, usable public transport, healthcare, not getting shot at school, not getting racially abused etc. are "socialism". So obviously they want to have some of this "socialism" as soon as possible.

Socialism is when the government does stuff, it would seem.

Context for the unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw

(The guy is joking in the video)

To be fair Mamdani has stated that he is a "socialist" numerous times. So I don't think that the characterization is wrong necessarily.

He identifies as a socialist, sure, but his implemented policies (what GGP was calling socialist) are mostly standard-issue municipal management.

Is it socialism to hire temporary labor for snow removal? To fix potholes? My boring municipality in the middle of a red state does that and nobody calls it socialist.

> My boring municipality in the middle of a red state does that and nobody calls it socialist.

I will never not be amazed at the US meaning of "red state" vs. what the rest of the world means by "red state".

There is a long tradition in America of Socialist mayors maintaining cities really well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_socialism Glad to see Zohran is bringing it back.

If we want to be fair, it depends on the characterization and its intended implications. The right has called every Democrat since FDR a "socialist" specifically to put the fear of tanks in the streets and death camps into people regardless of their actual policies. They called Obama a socialist. They called Hillary Clinton a socialist.

So even if Mamdani calls himself a socialist it's important to ask what he means by that versus what people calling him a socialist what you to think.

This line of thought bugs me. We use labels for a reason. Socialism has a well accepted definition and has for decades. We haven't modified it's meaning. I think it's fine to take someone at their word if they use a label. It's not on me to interrogate whether they mean something else when they use the label. It's on them to use the label correctly if they want to communicate. Especially if they are a politician where the entire job is to communicate and persuade.

There is no "well accepted definition" for any political term, least of all any political term from the left, each which has been co-opted by the right to the point that most are simply pejoratives and slurs in common parlance. Just look at "woke" for an example. No one using it anymore uses it in good faith, certainly not on the left.

What we have with "socialism" is the entire spectrum of what socialists themselves believe (and can't often agree upon) and what their opponents insist upon. A European style social democrat and an anarcho-syndicalist have radically different goals, but both would be considered "socialist" by most people. As would - just to point out the absurdity of it - Joe Biden, to half the country.

It is absolutely on you, and all of us, to think beyond "labels," otherwise you just make yourself susceptible to propaganda and misinformation, or at least incapable of fighting it.

Yeah, no. I am neither left or right these days and I see just as many attempts to coopt terms to have a different meaning from each side. My solve is to refuse to participate. If you want to communicate to me then you are going to have use the accepted definition not the definition you want me to believe instead. If you say you are a socialist then I will believe you. If you say you are a christian nationalist then I will believe you. I'm not interested in what your enemies want me to believe the term means. I'm only interested in the fact that you used it and it has real definition.

Any other road leads to madness and an absence of shared meaning. I will hold you to the standard of your own language and actions. Use the words correctly or be misunderstood. That's on you not me.

>If you want to communicate to me then you are going to have use the accepted definition not the definition you want me to believe instead.

And by "accepted definition" you mean "definition accepted by you."

There are few personality traits I find as insufferable as language prescriptivism, it always seems to hide a rigid and doctrinaire worldview. I won't waste your time or mine further. Good night.

Not by me. By the rest of the world along with me.

"The rest of the world" you say to a literal thread of people explaining why you're wrong

Right, the argument is "He is a socialist so when he gets power he will do X which I dislike". But now he is in power so the argument is moot. Instead, you have to list actions by him you dislike.

Forgive me for bluntness, but this is naive. What you think you are doing is holding firm to objective reality. What you are actually doing is willingly putting blinders on yourself about how humans use language.

You’ve adopted a certain definition of socialism and decided it’s the correct one. Which is fine, everyone does that with vocabulary. But you are not acknowledging to yourself that it was in fact an act of adoption to do so. Thus you are denying yourself the mental framework for evaluating how and why others might try to use competing definitions.

Metaphorically, words are buckets and different people put different things into the bucket. Sometimes it’s just silly like “is a hot dog a sandwich.” Other times there are more serious implications like the fundamental difference between “I have a theory” (about how a lamp got broken) vs “I have a theory” (a mathematical framework for predicting the relationship between genotypes and phenotypes).

And sometimes it is used to create shibboleths, whereby looking in people’s buckets communicates how open they are to persuasion of one type or another.

So it’s always a power move, and useful, to think “what exactly do they mean by that?” What do people gain and lose by adopting different definitions and words? Understanding that this happens continuously in all use of language helps one do a better job of relating labels to observable objective reality.

To come back to “socialism,” you might think Mamdani is doing himself a disservice by misusing (from your perspective) that term, thereby turning you off. But he just easily won a huge election! That’s objective reality: he got what he wanted, he succeeded. This might be a moment to consider other uses of that term, and the degree to which they may be outcompeting your adopted definition.

At no point in this thread have I made a value judgement about Socialism. He got elected claiming to be a socialist which is fine. My point is that getting upset when someone says he's a socialist when he actually claims to be one is silly. It worked for him and he communicated to his electorate what he needed to. New York elected a socialist because they wanted one. They don't get to say "don't label him a socialist" after the fact.

> They don't get to say "don't label him a socialist" after the fact.

This is not an accurate quote, what was said was “even if Mamdani calls himself a socialist it's important to ask what he means by that,” and that is what you objected to.

Yeah, I was surprised to see a downvote for that. Isn’t that like his position? I don’t believe in socialism. He seems like a nice guy. These aren’t incompatible.

This is nothing new. The most socialistic era of US history was the 1950s with a 90% federal income tax bracket capping yearly income to a max of 5mil a year in 2026 dollars. That is how we ended the great depression.

When a CEO cannot personally get richer by cutting wages, understaffing, and outsourcing; all of those things stop. This is why republicans called everyone a communist back in the 1950s. It is sad that people remember mccarthyism, but completely forget the socialistic tax policy that ended the great depression and made it possible to own a home out of high school while raising a family off a single income.

Hey buddy I’m not a “right winger”, I’m dead center with a voting record that reflects that. His policies are on the left end of the spectrum, whether that fits your model of the truth or not.

Arguably someone at the center of the US political spectrum is right wing by any other standard. This is why someone like Zohran with policies that are otherwise fairly sensible and moderate gets painted as far left. Within that framing it seems that every policy position within the “center left” to the “far right” of US politics serves the same coalition. And any claims of American exceptionalism (we exist on our own political spectrum because we are special) just provides more control over that framing to the same dominant coalition.

I mean, as far as I'm aware, "socialism" just means that the means of production are owned socially, instead of privately. But is there anything that he's actually done that is disagreeable, or is it just that many news outlets are saying "socialism = bad, Mamdani is socialist, therefore Mamdani = bad"?

“Just” is doing a lot of work in your argument.

The government grocery store tender is filled with exceptionally bad ideas.

When he’s a normal politician doing normal things, he seems great. When he’s sticking to his guns on naive populist things he’s part of a worrying affection for counterproductive government programs.

Yeah but under the norm none of us owe you anything including food or healthcare; that is... we don't have to care you exist

Why volunteer such?

Under capitalism there is no honorific obligationism. Pay me to give a shit you exist or go hungry and die

What's that? You want a social and communal society?

Sounds like naive populism.

>Pay me to give a shit you exist or go hungry and die

Socialism has the same problem, except it's "go to work and give a shit for less money or all of society dies"

Isn't that a description of capitalism?

Almost like the philosophy is meaningless and its innate human condition to exploit the power a philosophy defines

> filled with exceptionally bad ideas.

Name one, just for discussion's sake.

Its probably socialist to expect a rando on the internet to support their nonsense with evidence, have you even paid the man to support/substantiate his shitposting?

Take the case of "city owned stores" to "combat food price inflation".

Well. The city does not actually produce food. Stores get their produce from wholesalers. This is where the "city stores" will get them as well. Only now, regular stores know the city will undercut them in price using taxpayer money. So any location next to a city store will become poison. And soon all you will have (for some people) are the city stores.

Of course, with prices much cheaper than in other parts, you will likely get crowding at these stores. Leading to the infamous bread lines of the Soviet Union or Venezuela or what have you. Basically, if something is cheaper than the market price, you get shortages.

Ironically, the city sets prices based on a relative level to "normal stores". So it's not as if this is some "good capitalist competition". It's not as if it's a "temporary measure until catastrophe A is over".

There is put simply no way this experiment ends in a way that is positive for New Yorkers. And yes, this is socialism and there are very logical, rational economic reasons for why it always fail. This will be no different.

I agree with everything you said, but I think it's also a fairly low stakes experiment that might even be worth trying, and the real test of his competence as mayor is how quickly he realizes it that it won't work and shuts it down, rather than doubling or tripling down on it. Sometimes it's worth it to just take your best shot at implementing a probably bad but popular idea, as long as the consequences for failure are not too harsh.

There's a version of this, I think, that _doesn't_ fail, where they give up selling below cost and focus on setting up ABC-like grocery stores in "food deserts" that sell staple goods that bodegas don't carry.

I agree with everything you said, but is worth mentioning that while, “There is put simply no way this experiment ends in a way that is positive for New Yorkers,” is true, the most likely outcome is that (a) the stores will open and consistently lose a small amount of money, relative to the NYC budget, (b) some small grocers or bodegas will be either priced out or receive city subsidies which incur another small cost on the city’s budget, and (c) customers will experience some kind of annoying quota or identity check system which prevents aggressive arbitrage, but which ultimately doesn’t make the stores unbearable.

This will indeed be far from Pareto optimal, and a slow drain on the city’s budget and local economy, but could be successful enough that the stores can remain in operation in perpetuity, which boosters will frame as a “win”

It could end up having positive effects on the population which could help with income for the city. I'm not an economist, but it seems possible to me

Even if you support "helping struggling people" to pay their groceries. There are already programs for this such as SNAP. Basically means-tested programs that try to benefit people in need.

There are many ways to do redistribution for purposes of social welfare without actually competing with retailers that actually live on slim margins.

That doesn't give you as spectacular political ads or showmanship, however.

Means testing programs are intentionally burdensome to get into, put into place by conservatives who don't want free loaders. Removing that friction is a good thing

Conservatives dont want poor freeloaders, they are the biggest freeloaders and rich freeloaders are nowhere on their radar, besides wanting to emulate/become them

Which takes us back to the root of this thread.

His perception when he was running was "popular, well intentioned, and naive" for the reasons you're outlining. Yet what people have been experiencing isn't a mayor trying to try a bunch of bad-sounding ideas; it's a mayor who is visibly trying to make the city more livable.

In an overpriced and dysfunctional city with a history of self-aggrandizing, useless governance; livability is appealing.

The moderate take is "I don't care if he calls himself a socialist as long as he's making the city run better."

Grocery stores aren't evenly distributed throughout the city, though, and there are neighborhoods were either there is no store at all nearby, or the store that exists has poor quality and high prices. In those locations, the dynamic of a city-owned store undercutting a "normal" store isn't really going to apply since there isn't really a "normal" store in the area.

So much, of course, depends on the execution -- a crappy city store won't be a help to anyone -- but the concept isn't inherently bad on its face.

Ya but some rich dick like Buffet might notice that and a government store would stop them from swooping in and exploiting it

If cheaper grocery prices would pull people away from more expensive stores then Wholefoods wouldn't exist. People don't simply go to the cheapest grocery store.

"Of course, with prices much cheaper than in other parts, you will likely get crowding at these stores. Leading to the infamous bread lines of the Soviet Union or Venezuela or what have you."

There are over 100+ no-questions-asked community-run pantries in NYC where you can get groceries for free, not to mention others that ask for some sort of ID. You'd think that the crowding and bread lines would form here first no?

>People don't simply go to the cheapest grocery store.

You should look into how dollar stores eviscerated rural markets. Or even what walmart did.

People absolutely go to the cheapest stores. Whole Foods selling to a wealthier minority is not a counter factual here.

This isn't a rural market. We have Dollar stores here in NYC too. Point stands.

> The city does not actually produce food. Stores get their produce from wholesalers.

> Leading to the infamous bread lines of the Soviet Union or Venezuela or what have you.

These two statements don't follow one another. If the city stores are getting their goods from the same distributor any other grocery store is, why would the availability of that food dry up leading to breadlines?

> Ironically, the city sets prices based on a relative level to "normal stores". So it's not as if this is some "good capitalist competition". It's not as if it's a "temporary measure until catastrophe A is over".

This happens in "normal" stores as well. There's a concept called a "loss leader" where a store deliberately sells some goods at lower than market rates specifically to attract shoppers.

> There is put simply no way this experiment ends in a way that is positive for New Yorkers.

My state, Idaho, has had state ran liquor stores for my entire life. Our socialist alcohol hasn't resulted in booze lines or bedlam. I see no reason why a grocery store in a very wealthy city couldn't work.

> Only now, regular stores know the city will undercut them in price using taxpayer money.

IDK why he calls that a city-owned store, he should just say that the city has started a VC program aimed to fund startups in the retail sector.

Socialism is a continuum that the US has been on to some degree since its inception, it isn't a case of Capitalism good, socialism bad. Here's how I envy you: the people you have policy disagreements with will engage on those in good faith. I wish the opposite were true.

All these anti-socialists never questions who pays for their roads, their schools, their police, their fire service, the military, the FAA, the USPS, their libraries, their parks, the courts, NASA?

Are all of these right-wing people paying privately for those?

Don't get me wrong I think it is fine to question who pays for those things. And if you are one of those "I lean libertarian" types you probably are OK with private funding for NASA & USPS, but they need to be intellectually honest with why they are OK with masked federal agents roaming the streets.

It seems to me that what is "socialism" is just based on politicians personal definitions.

  Basic education for the people = good
  Higher education for the people = socialism

  Bail outs and subsidies for businesses = good
  Safety net for individuals = socialism

  Public highway = good
  Public railroad = socialism

This is an unhelpful comment. What socialist policies has he enacted? (I live here btw)

Well he's the government and he did stuff, and socialism is when the government does stuff, so he's socialist.

I’m sorry this makes no sense. He’s creating city owned grocery stores. I’m not just making up some slanderous label. That’s a socialist idea if ever there was one, good as it may be!

Socialism is workers seizing the means of production. No country is actually socialist at all, as in that case it means every single company is actually a coop of equal shares among the workers. Socialism does not mean when the government does something, at best that's social democracy.

That's one (Marxist) definition of it, but the movement is much broader and more varied than that.

What else could it mean? There are anarcho- and democratic socialists, sure, but their end goal is still workers owning the means of production.

> His policies are socialist.

Depends on how one defines "socialist"

> Some of us still perceive that as a bad thing.

Then what's wrong with you? Look at other first world countries.

All this "socialism bad" bullshit needs to stop. It has no basis in reality.

> It has no basis in reality.

It has some basis, perhaps consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_North_Korean_famine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derg

That’s totalitarian communism. Parent is talking about social democracy with a larger safety net. I’m not aware of gulags in the Netherlands or Sweden but maybe I haven’t looked hard enough.

I was just in here a while ago calling leftist class war stuff conspiracism BTW, so I’m equal opportunity.

Just so much bullshit everywhere. We’d have a much better discourse if words meant things and if we could toss the hyperbole and the conspiracy theories from all sides.

I agree, and I am also a centrist, but to say “socialism bad” has “no basis in reality” is wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com