In just a few months, Mamdani, a 34-year-old state assemblyman and Democratic Socialist, has gone from a long-shot fringe candidate to a national figure — securing an upset win in the June primary, where voters 18-29 had the highest turnout of any age group.
Now, on the cusp of Election Day — where polls show him the clear frontrunner over his closest rival, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — Mamdani is counting on that youth coalition to show up again. But his pledge to address rising costs appears to be resonating with young people far outside of the five boroughs. It’s a message that many Gen Z and millennials say speaks to their most pressing concerns at a time when many feel hopeless about their leaders and yearn for new voices willing to break with political norms.
“When a candidate is able to speak to the concerns of the populace and validate those concerns … I think that that has a big impact, especially when it comes to young people,” said Ruby Belle Booth, who studies young voters for the nonpartisan research organization CIRCLE.
Growing up on the 60s and 70s, we constantly heard about how we had to prop up terrible dictators, because the Communist/ Socialist system that would replace him would be worse.
But like you, I always thought that Communism/ Socialism was the natural bridge between a Dictatorship and a true Democracy. The Dictator goes to far in abusing the citizens, they rise up and take the country back for themselves.
Unfortunately, that usually means another dictator - Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At that point, the citizens start to get behind the idea of electing their leaders.
That is, if they don’t get taken over by ANOTHER dictator.
You raise valid points, yet I think we’re talking about different kinds of Socialism in a way. Your form of socialism here is like a Cold War era form of the ism. That form is often thought of as something which needs be imposed in a top-down fashion unto society — an inherently vulnerable approach. Look to history, a lot of 20th-century “socialisms” were really authoritarian states using socialist language to justify centralized control, and they did often end up as new dictatorships.
I think what I am aiming for, though, is not socialism as a bridge from dictatorship to democracy, but as a result of capitalism evolving beyond its own contradictions. More like democratic socialism: cooperative ownership, strong social infrastructure, but still open markets and innovation. It’s less about revolution or replacement, and more about integration. A phase where capitalist systems start to internalize social equity and worker participation as competitive advantages rather than ideological opposites. The socialism Id advocate for can (and maybe should) rise organically from the bottom up.
There’s a 3rd type of socialism that was more rarely spoken of in the 60’s and 70’s, because it didn’t have the drawbacks of centralized soviet style communism and therefor was more difficult to demonize: Anarchism. This ideology was successfully implemented for a few years in parts of Spain during their civil war, and its success in creating a non-hierarchical decentralized and free society even attracted George Orwell to visit it, and join their cause to fight for what they were building.
It was eventually crushed by both fascists and communists, as both sides were terrified of that concept spreading. If we’re able to implement it again someday, possibly in a spot where it would be much harder to crush militarily, then it would be a genie impossible to put back in the bottle, as it would be so self-evident in how superior of a way of life it provides to everyone, without the downsides of a centralized dictator.