Can democratic socialism expand while keeping a strong private economy?

[SolitarySolace]

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is doubling down on his identity as a democratic socialist while arguing that Wall Street, real-estate executives, and other business leaders have nothing to fear from his administration. He says he welcomes continued private investment in New York even while advocating higher taxes on the city’s wealthiest residents and corporations.

Mamdani also argues that democratic socialism represents a return to the Democratic Party’s New Deal tradition and says recent victories by democratic-socialist candidates show that voters are increasingly receptive to that political direction.

That raises a larger economic question.

Democratic socialists argue that government can substantially expand public programs, taxation, labor power, and social ownership while still maintaining productive relationships with private businesses and investors. Critics argue that increasingly burdensome taxation and an ideological movement committed to moving beyond capitalism will eventually discourage investment and undermine the private-sector economy.

Mamdani says businesses can continue investing and prospering under his approach. His critics are considerably less confident.

Do you believe a democratic-socialist government can substantially expand its agenda while maintaining a healthy, competitive private-sector economy?

I vote No.

Mamdani doubles down on democratic socialism while insisting Wall Street, business leaders can work with him
The new mayor argues Wall Street and corporate leaders have nothing to fear despite his push for higher taxes - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mamdani-doubles-down-democratic-socialism-insisting-wall-street-business-leaders-work-him

Yes

No

[exitseven]

No, as the socialist policies keep raising taxes on the few companies that are still there , even they will either be taxed out of existence or they will flee too,

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Anonymous]

Once democratic socialism infests it rots privacy in any form

[strateguy632]

in theory yes but he is also making that cheap stroe shop with unfair competition that will destroy private food shop sector. also the unofficial goal is to control economy so that part will destroy economy. but tax will just chase a few massive rich out.

[Effably]

I keep telling people this but you already have socialism. Democracy we can argue.

It is not a question of whether it can work, but to what extent you want it implemented and how. Your society will not function without it.

Mamdani's statement is an empty statement in technical terms, everyone has socialism. Its whole value is signaling focus.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably You are defining “socialism” so broadly that the term becomes almost meaningless. A capitalist mixed economy can have public schools, roads, Social Security, regulations, and other government programs without becoming socialist. Government activity is not automatically socialism.

The important question is who owns and controls productive property and whether private enterprise remains the economy’s foundation. Mamdani’s label is therefore not empty. He identifies with a movement that explicitly seeks greater social ownership and ultimately aims to move beyond capitalism.

So this is not merely a debate over whether society should have any public programs. It is about how far democratic socialists intend to shift economic power away from private owners and toward government or collective institutions—and whether a strong, genuinely independent private sector can survive that long-term direction.

[Effably]

My definition is broad and yours is extremely narrow.

So let us just look at what he actually said. Social Democracy. Which is a mixed market approach where vital support like Schools are handled by government but the market is primarily a free market.

Surely you will agree that a Social Democracy, by definition, is far closer to my than your version?

By the more narrow definition there exists no true capitalism either. We do need to look at it more broadly for the terminology to hold any meaning.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably My definition is not “extremely narrow.” It is based on the central economic question of who owns and controls productive property.

Social democracy generally preserves a predominantly capitalist, privately owned economy while regulating it and expanding public services. Democratic socialism seeks to transfer substantially more economic ownership and control toward public, worker, or collective institutions. Those are not identical systems.

Public schools, roads, Social Security, and regulations do not automatically make an economy socialist. Otherwise virtually every modern capitalist country would be “socialist,” and the term would cease to distinguish anything.

Mamdani may compare his immediate policies to the New Deal, but he identifies as a democratic socialist and is associated with a movement that explicitly says it wants to move beyond capitalism. That is why his label is not merely an empty description of ordinary mixed-market government.

So no, I will not collapse social democracy, democratic socialism, and every form of government activity into one vague category merely because your definition is broader. The distinction between regulating capitalism and ultimately replacing it is the entire point of this debate.

[Effably]

Those things do, by definition, make it socialist. The rest is just arguing the degree of flavour of it. Has Mamdani made any effort to seize any control of production? Even in your own retelling he is clearly not trying to replace private industry and markets.

I keep forgetting how you argue things. You do earn your name.

Either way, the core answer is yes. Of course it can. There are plenty of examples worldwide. Will that hold true for Mamdani if he goes that route? Who knows.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably No. Public schools, roads, Social Security and regulation do not “by definition” make an economy socialist. If they did, virtually every modern capitalist country would already be socialist, and the term would no longer distinguish public services from public or worker ownership of productive property. The DSA itself says capitalism must be replaced, that working people should run the economy, and that complete victory requires building a new society.

“Has Mamdani seized all production?” is a straw man. I never claimed he had already abolished private markets, and one municipal mayor could not implement the DSA’s entire national objective alone. But he has moved beyond ordinary regulation: his administration allocated $70 million for five city-owned grocery stores and explicitly describes the project as using public ownership. Mamdani has also declared that he was elected and would govern as a democratic socialist. That does not mean he has eliminated private enterprise; it means he is implementing limited public ownership while representing a movement whose stated objective goes much further.

The remark about my username adds nothing to your argument. If your “plenty of examples worldwide” are countries that retain private ownership and competitive markets while funding roads, schools, healthcare and welfare programs, then you are citing mixed-market or social-democratic capitalism—not examples of capitalism being replaced by democratic socialism. Name a country where that replacement actually occurred and produced the freedom and prosperity you are promising.

[Effably]

Right. Democratic socialism is socialism. Social-democatric is also socialism.

My constant argument has been you're already living in a form of socialism. You have repeatedly agreed while claiming yo are not by arguing there's a different type of socialism you are not living in. I have never claimed you are.

But you are already socialist. Only the degree differs. Even by your own definitions.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably No, that does not follow. A capitalist mixed economy does not become socialist merely because government operates schools, roads, emergency services, or social-insurance programs. The central economic distinction is who predominantly owns and controls productive property. In the United States, private ownership, private firms, markets, investment, and profit remain the foundation of the economy.

Modern social democracy generally preserves that capitalist foundation while regulating and taxing it to finance public services. Democratic socialism seeks substantially broader public, worker, or collective ownership and ultimately aims to move beyond capitalism. The two traditions overlap on some policies, but they are not the same economic system.

Your definition is so broad that every modern capitalist country—and every Republican president who funded highways, police, Medicare, Social Security, or the military—becomes “socialist.” That makes the word practically meaningless. I have never agreed that I am socialist. I support a capitalist mixed economy and reject replacing capitalism with democratic socialism.

So answer this directly: name one country you consider genuinely capitalist that has public schools, roads, police, a military, or any social program. If the existence of any government service automatically makes a country socialist, then no modern capitalist country can qualify under your definition. You have not proved that I am socialist; you have merely defined socialism so broadly that capitalism disappears by wordplay.

And you still have not named a country where capitalism was actually replaced by democratic socialism and produced the freedom and prosperity you claim it can.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably One more question: if America is already socialist merely because we have public schools, roads, Social Security, and other government programs, then what exactly does the DSA mean when it says capitalism must be replaced by democratic socialism?

You cannot coherently claim that our current system is already socialist while defending a movement whose stated purpose is to transform that same system beyond capitalism. Either the United States remains fundamentally capitalist—which is why the DSA wants to change it—or the DSA’s own distinction between capitalism and democratic socialism is meaningless. Which is it?

[Effably]

It is always challenging to not resort to a persnal attack with you. That is humorous in a way.

I will repeat it again. My claim is that there is a degree of socialism already and that all that is being argued is what that degree should be. I make that mention to prevent the fearmongering that tends to occur.

You are also correct. There is no fully capitalistic government in existence in the developed world since capitalism simply does not function on its own.

You shifting the goalpost does not change what I said. The US is already socialist as is the entire world. The degree is all that differs. Both social democracy and democratic socialism are by definition socialism. You have already fully admitted to being in one of them. What even is the argument to be had beyond that based on what I've said?

If you want to argue strictly the means of production we can naturally do that but that is an entirely different discussion compared to anything I have said and not an inherent must. I personally see no issue with a government opening a no-profit but self-sufficient store or industry as long as they are not enforcing barriers of entry.

Compare that to something like the tax, land, energy and salary benefits a company like Amazon receives and one is much more free market than the other. Creating a baseline to be beaten is only asking captialism to demonstrate that its advantages exist beyond theory. Hence any worrying should be about unfair competition. Which will be a much bigger topic than I think you and I should get into.

[SolitarySolace]

@Effably Fine—keep calling every mixed economy “socialist” if that is the definition you insist on using. I still refuse to let the United States move farther toward social ownership, government control of production, and the explicitly classless communist objective promoted by factions within the DSA. That is the danger Bill Maher has been warning about: not that every public road is communism, but that an organized movement is openly pushing well beyond ordinary regulation and welfare programs.

And your argument about “unfair competition” cuts against Mamdani’s project, not capitalism. An immigrant-led coalition representing dozens of business groups has announced plans to sue New York City because Mamdani’s taxpayer-supported grocery stores would receive advantages private grocers do not—municipal property, public subsidies, relief from ordinary rent pressures, and prices supported by taxpayers. Even the administration describes the model as using public ownership to remove costs. Small businesses are objecting because they cannot compete on equal terms with a government-backed rival.

So no, the means of production are not an “entirely different discussion.” They are the central distinction you keep trying to blur. Taxes and public services do not make the United States a socialist country. Expanding public ownership at the expense of private enterprise is precisely the movement toward socialism that I oppose. You may call the starting point whatever you please; I am not consenting to moving farther in that direction.

[Effably]

You are combining two different things.

First. Good. Let us leave terminology aside. Both are Socialism. The US is socialist to an extent but you are drawing a specific line that matters to you. That is completely fair. No need to do anything beyond acknowledge that you are not against all socialism but against it when it does X. Good. Finished.

Second. My mention of fair competition is how it would or would not be causing trouble in a free market, if we already assume that is the goal. As such I am showcasing where your concern may be justified, not making an argument against for or against. It is establishing a premise. That premise answers your original question.

If the intention from Mamdani is to unreasonably undercut what other stores can offer and unload any loss to taxpayers I will readily agree that is unfair. If the idea is to reduce profit margins in a sustainable way that is fundamentally no different than a new actor entering a market, which is completely fair. I readily acknowledge I do not know what Mamdani intends here. But this really is the core issue if you are concerned about capitalism surviving. People going out of business is a nonissue in captialism.

But I also want to stress that Amazon and similar companies are only in control because they enjoy those exact same benefits of unfair competition. So speaking sincerely, you should be AT LEAST as upset with that already happening as you seem to be that it might happen again but to the, arguable, benefit of the general population instead of Amazon, and basically every major company's, shareholders.

We are against all unfair competition, yes? The government subsidizing and reducing costs for these giants is already the worst version outcome of what Mamdani might do and already happening. Not to your benefit.

[BonzoInBitburg]

Corporations and CEOs don't worry about that. Taxes are easy enough to legally avoid through offshore trusts and shell companies.

[msc545]

Yes of course it will work. What won't work is continuing predatory corrupt unregulated capitalism. That is what we have presently.

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545 The United States does not have “unregulated capitalism.” It has extensive labor, environmental, banking, securities, antitrust, consumer-protection, zoning, licensing, tax, and workplace regulations. Corruption and market abuse should be punished, but those problems do not prove that private ownership and competitive markets should be displaced by democratic socialism.

More importantly, your answer avoids the question. If your proposed system preserves a strong private economy, private ownership, investment, and competitive markets while regulating abuses, then you are describing regulated capitalism or social democracy. If it follows the DSA’s stated objective of moving beyond capitalism through expanding social ownership, then why should private businesses believe their role will remain secure?

[msc545]

I'm sorry, you're right. The U. S. has all kinds of laws and regulations regulating capitalism, and none of those laws and regulations seem to get enforced.

[Cidknee]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[strateguy632]

yes! but the 'combination of words attached' has new meaning like 'put up with'. i forget the fancy grammar word. or like 'he has had headaches'. now present attached with past.