Each morning in the life of New York City, the air carries two things simultaneously: the smell of possibility and the smell of something burning. New York City has always been such a place, a metropolis of extraordinary aspiration and extraordinary grievance, where the distance between a penthouse on Central Park West and a rent-stabilized apartment in Astoria is measured not merely in dollars but in the cosmological distance between two Americas that increasingly share no common ground.
On January 1, 2026, in the abandoned City Hall subway station, a choice of venue so theatrically resonant it practically directed itself, Zohran Kwame Mamdani was sworn in during a private ceremony as the 112th mayor of New York City, the first Muslim mayor, the first born on African soil, the first self-described democratic socialist to hold that office. He took the oath in a public ceremony later that afternoon on two copies of the Quran. Bernie Sanders administered it. The crowd chanted “D-S-A.” And across the country, in the editorial rooms of centrist publications and in the corner offices of capital-allocating firms, a familiar anxiety took a sharper edge.
Mamdani’s victory over Andrew Cuomo, a titan of the Democratic establishment, a former governor with an ocean of name recognition and a war chest funded by super PAC money that dwarfed his opponent’s, was not an accident, but a verdict. Mamdani’s platform, built on fare-free city buses, frozen rents on stabilized apartments, city-owned grocery stores, universal childcare, and a $30 minimum wage by 2030, to be funded by a $10 billion tax increase on corporations and individuals earning above $1 million annually, spoke directly and without apology to what his constituents had come to understand as the fundamental condition of their lives. The infrastructure of daily survival in the most expensive city in America had become inaccessible to the people who built it, staffed it, and kept it running, and Mamdani looked them in the eye and said: I see you, and I have a plan.
This is always how it begins.
The Review by Ajay Raju: The Vice President flies to Islamabad (
The conditions that produce a Mamdani are not accidental. They are, in the most rigorous sense, the compound interest on decades of concentrated accumulation by those at the very top of the economic distribution, accumulation that has proceeded so steadily and so visibly that it has stopped feeling like policy failure and started feeling like the natural order of things, which is precisely the moment when electorates historically reach for the lever marked “enough.”
The top 1% of households owned 31.7% of all U.S. wealth in the third quarter of 2025, the highest share on record since the Federal Reserve began tracking household wealth in 1989. Collectively, the wealthiest 1% held about $55 trillion in assets, roughly equal to the wealth held by the bottom 90% of Americans combined. This is a condition, and not a statistic. An Oxfam International report released in early 2026 found that billionaire wealth in 2025 increased three times faster than the average annual rate over the previous five years. Meanwhile, higher-income Americans saw their wages grow at a 3% rate in December 2025, compared to 1.5% and 1.1% for middle- and low-income households. The divergence is structural, and no longer incidental. It is, increasingly, the defining political fact of our age.
Globally, the picture is similar. The wealthiest 0.001 percent, a group representing around 56,000 multi-millionaires, now hold three times more wealth than the bottom half of the world population. Their share has grown steadily from 3.7 percent in 1995 to 6.1 percent in 2025, according to the 2026 World Inequality Report. And in the United States, the number of American billionaires rose from 835 in 2024 to 924 in 2025, making the U.S. home to nearly a third of the global billionaire population.
Into this landscape, the anti-capitalist left has arrived not as a fringe but as an electoral force. The Democratic Socialists of America, whose internal architecture runs from social democrats to self-described Marxist-Leninist-Maoist caucuses, saw a surge in membership after the 2024 presidential election, growing to over 90,000 members by October 2025. In November 2025, alongside Mamdani’s triumph in New York, socialist candidates won municipal elections across the country. In Atlanta, DSA member and labor organizer Kelsea Bond became the city’s first ever socialist city council member with a convincing 64 percent of the vote. In Seattle, a socialist mayor was elected. The movement is now a tide and no longer a ripple.
And across the Atlantic, the picture is a mirror held at a different angle. The polarization of Western electorates that has produced far-right surges in France, Germany, Austria, and Hungary has simultaneously produced left-populist movements of comparable intensity. In France, the left-populist Jean-Luc Mélenchon came within a couple of percentage points of the presidential run-off votes in both 2017 and 2022. Germany’s federal election in February 2025 saw the Left party and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance obtain 14% of the vote combined. The center, across the democratic West, is not holding, but is being hollowed out from both flanks by electorates that have concluded, with varying degrees of reason and rage, that it no longer works for them.
The Review by Ajay Raju Chess between Xi and Trump: Games within the game (April 18, 2026)
This is the political physics of inequality taken to its logical end. When the distance between the top and the bottom of a society becomes too great to be bridged by individual aspiration, when the young professional realizes that the city her parents built on a single income now requires two incomes and still delivers a commute, a roommate, and a rent payment that consumes a third of everything she earns, the appeal of the candidate who says “the system is broken” becomes not ideological but experiential.
The democratic socialist, at his or her best, is not a negative force. Mamdani is not Maduro. The DSA is not the Politburo. The comparison is too easy, too lazy, and ultimately too dishonest to be useful. The mechanism by which popular anti-capitalist movements translate from electoral victories into actual governance has, across the full arc of modern history, produced a remarkably consistent pattern, one that begins with genuine grievance, proceeds through popular enthusiasm and redistributive ambition, encounters the hard mathematics of capital mobility and institutional constraint, and ends, in degrees that vary enormously by context and temperament, in compounding damage.
The ideologue’s bargain is not conspiracy, but misalignment: between the time horizon of political reward and the time horizon of civic consequence. The mayor who generates viral videos today about taxing billionaires may not be in office, and may not be alive, when the bond rating agencies, the relocation decisions of mid-size employers, and the quiet departure of the mobile tax base fully manifest in a city’s fiscal condition.
This is not a theoretical concern for New York. The Citizens Budget Commission, a non-partisan institution, has warned explicitly that tax increases would “risk the city’s competitiveness at a time of domestic outmigration, declining international immigration, and stagnant jobs numbers.” The city’s projected budget gaps grow to over $7 billion annually by 2030. Moody’s and S&P have issued cautionary assessments. The New York City Comptroller has stated without equivocation that the city is spending more than it takes in. These are not the warnings of ideological opponents, but are the assessments of the institutions whose job is to watch the fiscal reality that the polls do not measure.
Mamdani’s $10 billion revenue plan, to be funded by taxes on the wealthy and corporations, requires the cooperation of Governor Hochul, who has already thrown cold water on Mamdani’s plan to raise income taxes on the wealthy. That is the institutional friction that separates the applause of the rally from the math of governance. Mamdani’s intentions are genuine, but can the machine he has inherited be steered to his destination without sending capital, employers, and the mobile middle class to Miami, Austin, and Phoenix, which would, with terrible irony, leave behind precisely the concentrated, service-dependent electorate that would reelect him while the fiscal foundation continue to erode?
The deepest lesson of history’s encounters with anti-capitalist governance is not that redistribution is wrong. It is that redistribution requires a productive base to redistribute from, and that the productive base has feet.
Venezuela is an extreme example. In 1970, Venezuela was the wealthiest country in Latin America. Sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserve, its citizens earned 2.5 times as much as the rest of Latin America, about the same as the average Finnish, Japanese, and Italian citizen. Its poverty rate was about a third of what it was in the rest of Latin America. Hugo Chávez arrived promising to deploy this wealth on behalf of those whom the previous order had left behind. He was not lying. The Bolivarian missions were real. The initial poverty reduction was real. And the underlying structure, oil-dependent, institutionally hollowed, constitutionally captured, was catastrophic in ways that the applause of the rally could not reveal.
GDP per capita bottomed in 2020 once the economy had contracted 73% from the start of the crisis. Venezuela’s self-destructive economic framework led to the largest ever economic decline outside war, revolution or state collapse. By the time the full accounting arrived, the economy had evaporated approximately 80% of its GDP, a figure that dwarfs what happened to the United States in the Great Depression. Roughly 80% of the population lived in poverty in 2024. As of 2024, almost 8 million people, 22.5% of the population, had fled Venezuela due to food, water, and medicine shortages. And with exquisite, terrible irony: the Gini coefficient rose from 40.7 in 2014 to 53.9 in 2024, making Venezuela one of the most unequal countries in the Americas. The government that arrived to end inequality produced more of it than any that had preceded it.
Yes, the Venezuelan case is extreme. It required a petrostate structure, an authoritarian consolidation of institutions, and the particular catastrophic alchemy of Maduro’s response to collapsing oil prices, which was to print money rather than reform. No serious person will argue that New York City or Seattle is Venezuela. But the underlying mechanism, the one that punishes the productive base before the ideologue has finished his victory speech, operates at every scale, in every democratic context, wherever capital can move and the mobile middle class has options.
The Review by Ajay Raju: Stampede by design: Inside Trump’s chaotic dust storm (March 2, 2026)
Detroit is the domestic example that history keeps serving. The city that was the industrial capital of the world in 1950 became the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history in 2013. Coleman Young won five consecutive mayoral terms while the city’s tax base systematically departed. The electorate that remained, concentrated in its dependence on municipal services, continued to elect the redistributive leader, because from their position the calculus was entirely rational. They needed those services. The tragedy was structural: the departure of capital that funded those services was accelerated by the very policies designed to serve those who remained, until there was nothing left to accelerate.
Milwaukee’s socialist mayors of the early 20th century, Daniel Hoan, Frank Zeidler, are sometimes offered as counterexamples, men who governed well, kept books honest, and delivered genuine civic improvement. They did. But they governed cities at the height of American industrial expansion, cities whose productive base was not mobile in the modern sense, cities before the interstate highway, before the right-to-work state, before the private equity firm could move a manufacturing operation to a lower-tax jurisdiction within a fiscal quarter. The structural conditions of the 2020s are not the structural conditions of the 1920s, and the analogy does not survive the migration.
I write this not as an apologist for the status quo that produced Mamdani, Bond, and the DSA’s expanding electoral footprint. The status quo is, in material terms, genuinely indefensible. The wealthiest 10% of U.S. households held an average of $6.9 million and controlled 67% of total household wealth, while the poorest 50% averaged just $51,000 and held only 2.5. These numbers do not describe a meritocracy. They describe an inheritance, of capital, of network, of zip code, that has compounded over decades into something that increasingly resembles the aristocratic structures the American republic was founded to escape.
The grievance is legitimate, the diagnosis is largely correct, but the prescribed medicine will kill the patient.
The truly dangerous political moment is not the election of a democratic socialist, but what comes after: the discovery that the promises made in opposition cannot be fully delivered in office, that the wealthy and the corporations are more mobile than the manifesto anticipated, that the bond rating agencies do not care about the rally, and that the electorate, whose legitimate anger has been channeled into a political vessel not fully equipped to contain it, turns to something harder, more authoritarian, more willing to abandon the niceties of democratic constraint in pursuit of the redistribution it was promised.
That is the trajectory that Venezuela traces. That is the trajectory that Detroit traces. That is the moment, and it arrives with terrible consistency, when the ideologue’s bargain runs out of road and the bill comes due for everyone except the ideologue himself, who has, by then, usually found a university appointment, a foundation sinecure, or an exile comfortable enough to continue speaking at conferences about the revolution that was, this time, so close.
But is there a path between the inequality that produces the socialist and the governance that accelerates the city’s decline? Is there a vocabulary for capitalism reformed rather than capitalism overthrown, a language that the legitimate grievance of the dispossessed and the legitimate concern of the bond rating agency can both understand?
The Nordic countries suggest there might be, but they arrived at their settlement through decades of negotiation between organized labor, organized capital, and strong state institutions that were built before the argument about whether to have them was ever joined. The moment for that architecture in America may or may not have passed. What has not passed is the obligation to think honestly about what works, which requires both the courage to name the failure of the system that produced the inequality and the discipline to resist the seduction of solutions that feel righteous but unravel in the ledger.
Every city that has moved from prosperity to decline passed through a moment of magnificent, genuine, democratically expressed hope. The applause was real, the votes were real, the anger that produced them was earned, and the compounding damage, silent, patient, indifferent to ideology, was as real as any of it.