By Nathan Richardson*
The June 2025 Democratic primary in New York shocked many on the U.S. left. Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed socialist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), defeated former governor Andrew Cuomo to secure the party’s nomination for mayor. Supporters quickly declared the result a major breakthrough for the socialist movement. However, this development is less a victory than it is a reflection of a broader contradiction facing the U.S. left: the attempt to reconcile socialist rhetoric with participation in a party fundamentally loyal to capital.
This tension is not new. Over the last decade, progressive Democrats have tried to position themselves as a working-class alternative inside the Democratic Party. But the party itself remains aligned with the interests of Wall Street, landlords, military contractors, and large corporations. Mamdani’s success, while notable, does not escape this reality. Like other so-called democratic socialists operating within the Democratic Party, he is navigating an institutional structure built to neutralize and absorb any threat to the capitalist order.
The cases of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are instructive. Both have run on left platforms and mobilized large sections of the working class. But at key moments, each has called for unity with the Democratic establishment. In 2016 and 2020, Sanders ultimately endorsed candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden - figures committed to maintaining the very neoliberal policies he campaigned against. Ocasio-Cortez has similarly used her platform to encourage electoral support for centrist Democrats, even after those figures opposed her most ambitious proposals. When push comes to shove, both have prioritized loyalty to the party over confrontation with it.
Zohran Mamdani, despite different rhetoric, is caught in the same structural bind. His campaign proposed a $30 minimum wage, city-owned grocery stores, rent control, and other ambitious measures. These policies mirror long-standing demands of the socialist movement. But while these proposals are popular among working-class New Yorkers, their realization within the framework of the Democratic Party is unlikely. The party’s leadership and financial base oppose such policies and have historically worked to limit their scope.
This pattern highlights a deeper problem. Progressive Democrats frequently borrow socialist and communist slogans but rarely implement their substance. Words like “workers’ rights,” “public ownership,” and “redistribution” are used in campaign speeches, but once in office, these demands are scaled down or deferred indefinitely. The result is a form of political mimicry - one that raises expectations without changing underlying power structures. Working-class voters, drawn in by this language, often find themselves disillusioned.
In this context, Mamdani’s primary win should be viewed not as a step forward, but as a familiar chapter in a repeating story. The Democratic Party remains structurally incompatible with working-class politics. It is a bourgeois party that functions to manage capitalism, not abolish or transform it. Its internal logic rewards compromise and discourages confrontation with capital. Attempts to reform it from within have historically failed. The victories of figures like Mamdani may shift the tone of public discourse, but they leave core relations of power untouched.
This contradiction has significant implications. When progressive candidates win under the Democratic banner, it gives the illusion of momentum for the left. But because they cannot deliver substantive change within the party framework, this illusion quickly turns into frustration. Over time, this gap between rhetoric and results fosters cynicism, making it harder to mobilize genuine working-class support.
Some defenders of this strategy argue that running as a Democrat is a tactical necessity. They point to the U.S. electoral system’s structural barriers to third-party campaigns. But this view fails to account for the long-term consequences of political co-optation. By remaining inside the Democratic Party, socialists allow their platforms to be absorbed, repackaged, and ultimately neutralized by a party that serves the capitalist class.
Moreover, the dominance of progressive Democrats within left discourse has sidelined alternative strategies. Instead of building independent working-class institutions, energy has been funneled into primary campaigns and internal Democratic fights. This orientation has produced media visibility, but not durable political power. It has not increased class consciousness or led to stronger labor organizing. In many ways, it has confused the boundaries between socialist politics and left-liberal branding.
What’s more, the perceived success of progressive Democrats has often been used to delay conversations about political independence. When someone like Mamdani wins, the argument is made that the left should “stay the course” and try to replicate his success elsewhere. But this approach fails to grapple with the fundamental issue: progressive Democrats are structurally constrained by their party affiliation. Until that changes, even the most well-intentioned candidates will be limited in what they can achieve.
None of this is to say that figures like Mamdani, Sanders, or Ocasio-Cortez are acting in bad faith. Rather, they are operating within a political system that rewards moderation and punishes dissent. The real issue is strategic. If the goal is to build power for the working class, then continuing to operate within a party that defends capitalist interests is not a viable path. Political independence is not a luxury - it is a precondition for advancing socialist politics in any meaningful way.
Mamdani’s rise reflects both the growing appeal of socialist rhetoric and the deep limitations of the current political strategy. The working class may respond to such candidates out of hope, but their hopes are ultimately constrained by the capitalist structures these politicians refuse to break from. The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for socialism. It is a party that represents one wing of the ruling class. Until the left breaks with it - organizationally, financially, and ideologically - its victories will remain symbolic at best. Real change requires more than winning primaries. It requires building a political force independent of capital, committed to transforming the system rather than managing its decline.
The cases of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are instructive. Both have run on left platforms and mobilized large sections of the working class. But at key moments, each has called for unity with the Democratic establishment. In 2016 and 2020, Sanders ultimately endorsed candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden - figures committed to maintaining the very neoliberal policies he campaigned against. Ocasio-Cortez has similarly used her platform to encourage electoral support for centrist Democrats, even after those figures opposed her most ambitious proposals. When push comes to shove, both have prioritized loyalty to the party over confrontation with it.
Zohran Mamdani, despite different rhetoric, is caught in the same structural bind. His campaign proposed a $30 minimum wage, city-owned grocery stores, rent control, and other ambitious measures. These policies mirror long-standing demands of the socialist movement. But while these proposals are popular among working-class New Yorkers, their realization within the framework of the Democratic Party is unlikely. The party’s leadership and financial base oppose such policies and have historically worked to limit their scope.
This pattern highlights a deeper problem. Progressive Democrats frequently borrow socialist and communist slogans but rarely implement their substance. Words like “workers’ rights,” “public ownership,” and “redistribution” are used in campaign speeches, but once in office, these demands are scaled down or deferred indefinitely. The result is a form of political mimicry - one that raises expectations without changing underlying power structures. Working-class voters, drawn in by this language, often find themselves disillusioned.
In this context, Mamdani’s primary win should be viewed not as a step forward, but as a familiar chapter in a repeating story. The Democratic Party remains structurally incompatible with working-class politics. It is a bourgeois party that functions to manage capitalism, not abolish or transform it. Its internal logic rewards compromise and discourages confrontation with capital. Attempts to reform it from within have historically failed. The victories of figures like Mamdani may shift the tone of public discourse, but they leave core relations of power untouched.
This contradiction has significant implications. When progressive candidates win under the Democratic banner, it gives the illusion of momentum for the left. But because they cannot deliver substantive change within the party framework, this illusion quickly turns into frustration. Over time, this gap between rhetoric and results fosters cynicism, making it harder to mobilize genuine working-class support.
Some defenders of this strategy argue that running as a Democrat is a tactical necessity. They point to the U.S. electoral system’s structural barriers to third-party campaigns. But this view fails to account for the long-term consequences of political co-optation. By remaining inside the Democratic Party, socialists allow their platforms to be absorbed, repackaged, and ultimately neutralized by a party that serves the capitalist class.
Moreover, the dominance of progressive Democrats within left discourse has sidelined alternative strategies. Instead of building independent working-class institutions, energy has been funneled into primary campaigns and internal Democratic fights. This orientation has produced media visibility, but not durable political power. It has not increased class consciousness or led to stronger labor organizing. In many ways, it has confused the boundaries between socialist politics and left-liberal branding.
What’s more, the perceived success of progressive Democrats has often been used to delay conversations about political independence. When someone like Mamdani wins, the argument is made that the left should “stay the course” and try to replicate his success elsewhere. But this approach fails to grapple with the fundamental issue: progressive Democrats are structurally constrained by their party affiliation. Until that changes, even the most well-intentioned candidates will be limited in what they can achieve.
None of this is to say that figures like Mamdani, Sanders, or Ocasio-Cortez are acting in bad faith. Rather, they are operating within a political system that rewards moderation and punishes dissent. The real issue is strategic. If the goal is to build power for the working class, then continuing to operate within a party that defends capitalist interests is not a viable path. Political independence is not a luxury - it is a precondition for advancing socialist politics in any meaningful way.
Mamdani’s rise reflects both the growing appeal of socialist rhetoric and the deep limitations of the current political strategy. The working class may respond to such candidates out of hope, but their hopes are ultimately constrained by the capitalist structures these politicians refuse to break from. The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for socialism. It is a party that represents one wing of the ruling class. Until the left breaks with it - organizationally, financially, and ideologically - its victories will remain symbolic at best. Real change requires more than winning primaries. It requires building a political force independent of capital, committed to transforming the system rather than managing its decline.
* Nathan Richardson is a writer: dawn1776.substack.com