Zohran Mamdani: A Preliminary Marxist-Leninist Assessment
By Mike B. for MLRG.online, July 2025
Zohran Mamdani’s July 1 victory in the Democratic Primary for New York City’s mayoral race was, if nothing else, a stunning political upset. Amidst a crowded field of Democratic competitors – including former disgraced New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – Mamdani remains a relative upstart. Significantly, Mamdani also identifies as a “Democratic Socialist,” embracing politics at least in a terminology which is typically anathema for American politicians.
Nevertheless, by defeating Cuomo by a margin of almost 14% in the final round of voting, Mamdani emerged as a major contender for the 2025 General Election’s coming mayoral contest.
For his part, Mamdani has carefully built his political brand over the course of the past six years, beginning with his successful campaign for New York State Assembly in 2019. He has defended the seat in two subsequent elections.
As of mid-March, Mamdani has been the prime sponsor of 19 pieces of legislation and is the only state legislator in the mayoral race to not miss a single session in Albany since the start of the year.
Some of Mamdani’s key accomplishments include helping implement a pilot program to provide free bus service on one line in each borough and joining taxi drivers in a hunger strike to relieve millions of dollars of debt.
“Meet the candidate: Zohran Mamdani.” Spectrum News NY 1, May 20, 2025.
Mamdani seems an attractive candidate to his working-class constituents, but this raises important questions. Can an honest “democratic socialist” get so far without compromise? And how far can they go while continuing to remain honest? The omens, judging from some of his forerunners, are not encouraging. But thus far, Mamdani seems to have been not yet corrupted.
“Left” and Right Reactions
Republicans and Democrats alike have scrambled to put their respective spins on Mamdani, his policies, and the “meaning” behind his victory. The formulae thus far have been predictable enough: Traditional Democrats, now mostly of the neo-liberal tendency, have largely hesitated to offer full-throated endorsements to the individual who is ostensibly their collective nominee. “Progressive” Democrats, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, are resoundingly supportive and enthusiastic, although they remain a small minority within their party.
As for the Republicans, America’s right wing has universally condemned Mamdani. They use the same brand of red-baiting that American politicians have wielded with impunity for the better part of a century. Through mounting fervor and troubling rhetoric, the right is publicly pondering extreme measures to neutralize Mamdani, both politically and personally.
Mamdani, as it turns out, is an almost perfect “boogeyman” for America’s right, including the corrupt Democratic Party. In addition to self-identifying as a “socialist,” he is a person of color, a naturalized citizen, and a Muslim; and worst of all, his alleged sin is – to date – his continued support for Palestine. For public officials in the USA, today especially, this requires both morality, honesty, and courage. All in short supply.
Notes on Key Positions
Mamdani’s current political platform includes significant emphasis on improving housing conditions, access to healthcare, and increasing the New York City’s minimum wage. Moreover, his public statements on the situation in Gaza distinguish Mamdani from most mainstream American politics, most of whom choose to unconditionally support Israel despite undeniable and unrelenting evidence of Palestinian suffering:
Mamdani — who co-founded his college’s first Students for Justice in Palestine chapter — has been a vocal critic of Israel’s military response to the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, an issue that has deeply divided the Democratic Party.
While mourning the loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives, Mamdani condemned Israel’s decision to cut electricity to Gaza and the occupation in a statement the day after the attack on Israel, which he later called a “horrific war crime.” But critics, including some Jewish groups, have pointed to Mamdani’s track record on Israel even before Oct. 7.
It includes his long-standing support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement (he’s declined to say whether he would advocate for the policy as mayor), and a 2023 bill he drafted that would prohibit New York nonprofits from supporting Israeli settler activity. The legislation was widely criticized by Democratic lawmakers — who called it “a ploy to demonize Jewish charities” — and did not pass.
Mamdani further stirred controversy the week before the primary when, in an interview with The Bulwark, he refused to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” — which many Jewish people interpret as a call for violence against them and Israel, even as some pro-Palestinian protesters say it is a peaceful call to resist Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
When asked whether the slogan made him uncomfortable, Mamdani said it captured “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.”
“4 things to know about Zohran Mamdani, presumptive Democratic nominee for NYC mayor.” NPR, June 25, 2025.
Mamdani has also expressed significant opposition to the Trump Administration’s anti-immigrant efforts, including large-scale deployments of ICE agents and mass deportation. As noted by right-wing outlet Fox News:
Mamdani has been widely criticized for his previous calls to defund the police and his stated opposition to working with Trump to deport illegal immigrants if he is elected mayor in November. After winning the primary race in June, Mamdani said he would halt “masked” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials from “deporting our neighbors.”
“ICE torches ‘deafening’ silence from Mamdani on CBP officer shooting.” Fox News, July 21, 2025.
As such, Republicans have threatened extreme measures to keep Mamdani out of the mayor’s office. These include possibly expelling him from American politics – and from the nation itself- on a permanent basis. In the wake of Mamdani’s primary win, Trump floated the idea of arresting and deporting Mamdani at some future point. See Trump falsely questions Zohran Mamdani’s citizenship, threatens to arrest him over ICE operations; ABC News, July 1, 2025. Online, right-wing pundits quickly invoked communist suppression laws still on the books in the United States as a means of neutralizing Mamdani. See Republicans Ask Donald Trump To Revoke Zohran Mamdani’s Citizenship; Newsweek, June 26, 2025.
In light of all this, Marxist-Leninists have debated whether or not Mamdani deserves our collective support.
What Does Mamdani’s Rise Mean to Marxist-Leninists?
The term “socialist” has long served as both a pejorative and as a distinguishing political third rail in American politics.
Zohran Mamdani is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). By its own description, the DSA is an “organization” and not a political party. They note:
Who we are
The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 80,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.
What we do
We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters, DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people.
Source: Democratic Socialists of America
The organization’s platform supports “progressive” political causes to the left of America’s political center. As opposed to being revolutionary socialists, DSA adherents support the reform of America’s existing system through activism, legislation, and elections. The most prominent American elected officials currently associated with the DSA include Representatives Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Rashida Talib.
Mamdani himself cites United States Senator Bernie Sanders as a major influence. Sanders has long identified as a “democratic socialist,” and his high-profile campaigns for public office are claimed to be leading a resurgence in “socialism” in the United States. Sanders has run for the office of the American Presidency on multiple occasions and caucuses with Democratic legislators in the U.S. Senate.
Sanders distinguishes an important divide between revolutionary socialism and reform-based democratic socialism, basing the latter on Franklin Roosevelt. It was U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) who, at a time of crisis for American capital, began the “New Deal” (First New Deal: 1933-1936, Second New Deal: 1935-1948). The Roosevelt Administration created and implemented New Deal policies and programs to spark and sustain economic recovery in the wake of the Great Depression (1929-1939). Critical New Deal initiatives included the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Social Security Act (SSA).
In a 2019 CNN town hall, Sanders cited Roosevelt as influential to his own vision as a legislator. He was then a candidate for Chief Executive.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders offered a full-throated defense of democratic socialism in a speech in Washington on Wednesday, invoking the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to call for a “21st Century Bill of Rights.”
“Over 80 years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped create a government that made transformative progress in protecting the needs of working families,” Sanders told the crowd at George Washington University. “Today, in the second decade of the 21st century, we must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion.”
Sanders said his vision of democratic socialism requires “the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love.”
“Sanders defends democratic socialism, calling for ‘21st Century Bill of Rights.’” CBS News, June 12, 2019.
Sanders’ platform included fundamental protections for Constitutional guarantees as well as the ultimate goals of free healthcare and higher education. He further aspired to reduce the economic divide between the poor and working people and the rich elites. All these are admirable. But they are located within a capital moving to a new world war. They seek to preserve systems that are both fundamentally flawed and kept in place by a heavily armed and oppressive military-industrial complex.
This runs contrary to Lenin’s explanation of socialism in “The State and Revolution.” Here Lenin explicitly states that socialism is a phase in the development of communism and not, as Sanders and Mamdani, et al hold, an end unto itself.
The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property… Marx shows the course of development of communist society… which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods “according to the amount of labor performed” (and not [yet] according to needs).”
But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism.
Source: “The First Phase of Communist Society,” from The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin
To be sure, Lenin followed the principles established by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto:
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Source: “Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists” from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
But Sanders refuses to take such steps. It means his strategy cannot and will not break the lock-hold of capital. His ‘vision’ remains in the confines of greasing here and there, the jammed gears of capital. Such is the same case with Zohran Mamdani, who is currently riding high atop a wave of left-leaning/progressive populism. Mamdani does not see the wall that must be broken through.
Without a large and united Marxist-Leninist party, the resistance will not be broken. Democratic Socialism ultimately cannot match the sheer power and weight of both the capitalist system and the rightist Trumpite populism that currently controls all three branches of American government. That is in an ever-extending reach to exercise ever-increasing control over health, science, the arts, popular culture, and everyday life in the United States.
It should be noted that the populist appeal of “socialism” has the potential to radicalize working-class Americans by improving awareness regarding social justice, equality, and class consciousness. Indeed, this is what reactionaries on the right already fear, as explained by Marion Smith of the so-called “Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation”:
Millennials and Gen Z-ers are becoming increasingly comfortable with socialism, according to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC), which conducts an annual poll assessing Americans’ attitudes toward socialism.
VOC Executive Director Marion Smith attributes this trend shown in VOC’s poll, as well as in other national polls, to a failure of American educational institutions, definitional misunderstandings and a double standard in media and on social media.
“We are seeing the high watermark, politically, of socialism [and] Marxism in the United States,” Smith told Fox News. “Never before in history has the United States seen positive opinions of these ideologies to the extent that we’re seeing today. That’s just a fact.”
“Millennials, Gen Z increasingly comfortable with socialism, Marxism, activists say.” Fox News, October 30, 2020.
More specific to the New York mayoral race, recent polling initiated by the conservative Cato Institute indicates that young New Yorkers are increasingly receptive to the concepts of socialism and communism.
In the March 2025 survey, Cato/YouGov asked a national sample of 2,000 Americans aged 18 and older about US fiscal policy, including the following: “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Socialism?” and “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Communism?”
A total of 43 percent said they have a “favorable” view of socialism, and for those aged 18–29, 62 percent said favorable. For communism, a total of 14 percent said they have a favorable view; however, in the 18–29 group, 34 percent said favorable. That’s about 18 million people. (The findings are estimates: there are an estimated 52 million Americans aged 18–29, so 34 percent is 17.68 million; 62 percent of that age group is roughly 32 million people.)
… In addition to the communist fans, some 32 million young Americans are fine with socialism.
“Young Americans Like Socialism Too Much—That’s a Problem Libertarians Must Fix.” Cato Institute, May 15, 2025.
“Marxists” Versus Mamdani
While it is evident that Mamdani’s idealism is not a viable political solution to the American situation, it is also problematic that some Marxist-Leninists condemn Mamdani outright. In a post that was ultimately promoted by the notoriously right-wing New York Post tabloid, the Maoist (Avakianite) Revolutionary Communists of America (RCA) harangued Mamdani for “deceiving the working class”:
Despite his nice-sounding words, Zohran is ultimately a reformist seeking to make minor tweaks to the New York City budget. In the process, he is deceiving the working class about the role of the Democratic Party and about the possibility of achieving meaningful improvements under capitalism. Rather than building the influence of socialism, he is tainting that word through false promises and associating himself with the rotten and discredited Democratic Party.
[…]
Despite his nice-sounding words, Zohran is ultimately a reformist seeking to make minor tweaks to the New York City budget. In the process, he is deceiving the working class about the role of the Democratic Party and about the possibility of achieving meaningful improvements under capitalism. Rather than building the influence of socialism, he is tainting that word through false promises and associating himself with the rotten and discredited Democratic Party.
“Why Communists Can’t Support Zohran Mamdani.” RCA, May 15, 2025.
The Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party (SEP), via World Socialist Website (WSWS.org) noted that while there is some basis for encouragement in Mamdani’s rise, a Mamdani victory would herald darker times ahead.
Workers internationally have had a wealth of experience on the results of movements that promise reform but do not touch the foundations of capitalist society: Syriza in Greece, Corbynism in Britain, the Left Party in Germany and many others. The outcome is inevitably a political betrayal and the strengthening of the right.
“The political significance and implications of Mamdani’s victory in New York City.” WSWS.org, June 26, 2025.
UK-based Trotskyist site In Defence of Marxism struck a similar tone:
This is why Marxists point out that, despite even the best of intentions, betrayal is inherent in reformism. Not only will his methods fail to deliver reforms for the working class, but they will lead to the discrediting of “socialism” by associating it with broken promises. We can be sure that the capitalist press will eagerly seize on each and every opportunity to make this case.
“United States: Zohran Mamdani stuns establishment – is this a step toward a socialist NYC?.” In Defence of Marxism, June 26, 2025.
Additionally, the online journal Firebrand, an offshoot of the International Socialist Organization (ISO), implored New Yorkers to categorically reject Mamdani’s candidacy:
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.
“Should Socialists Support Zohran Mamdani?” Firebrand, June 26, 2025.
Does Mamdani Merit Marxist-Leninist Support at Present?
We will scrutinize Mamdani’s continuing policies and view in our forthcoming writings. However, they appear in their current form, progressive and in the interests of the working class. As such, it is appropriate for Marxist-Leninists to support Mamdani at this juncture.
Additionally, Mamdani’s self-characterization as “socialist” and the right’s condemnation of him as a “radical,” a “socialist,” and a “communist” signal a forthcoming uptick in anti-communist campaigns by the United States government. It is evident that progressives and radicals alike will be targeted for extreme repression by the Trumpists and their enforcers. This is the time for America’s political left to unify and resist for the sake of our collective survival.
While his candidacy is far from a flash-point for revolutionary change in America, the principled support of Mamdani and similar “progressive” politicians is demonstrative of the Leninist strategies of “flexibility” and “compromise,” as elucidated in Lenin’s work, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.
Moreover, as so-called “democratic socialism” continues drawing the interest of young generations of Americans motivated for large-scale social change, opportunities shall develop through which a genuine working-class political movement – a Marxist-Leninist party – will educate the masses on the steps necessary to ultimately move towards true socialism.
If you want to help the “masses” and win the sympathy and support of the “masses,” you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the “leaders,” but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.
Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
