3 ms·

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 actua

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"?

mercutio2 1mo ago
“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.
- grackasthebig 1mo ago
  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.
  - WarmWash 1mo ago
    >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"
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      Isn't that a description of capitalism?
      - grackasthebig 1mo ago
        Almost like the philosophy is meaningless and its innate human condition to exploit the power a philosophy defines
- ambicapter 1mo ago
  > filled with exceptionally bad ideas. Name one, just for discussion's sake.
  - Obscurity4340 1mo ago
    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?
mikaeluman 1mo ago
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.
- empath75 1mo ago
  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.
- derektank 1mo ago
  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”

mercutio2 1mo ago

“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.

grackasthebig 1mo ago
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.
- WarmWash 1mo ago
  >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"
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    Isn't that a description of capitalism?
    - grackasthebig 1mo ago
      Almost like the philosophy is meaningless and its innate human condition to exploit the power a philosophy defines
ambicapter 1mo ago
> filled with exceptionally bad ideas. Name one, just for discussion's sake.
- Obscurity4340 1mo ago
  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?

mikaeluman 1mo ago

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.

empath75 1mo ago
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.
derektank 1mo ago
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”