Why Mamdani’s socialism will only bite the big crapple
“What’s Yours Is Ours… and What’s Ours Is Nobody’s”
The newly elected Mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, has a plan—and it sounds almost too good to be true.
Those on the political right (myself included, as well as most of my friends) are understandably alarmed. Yet this fear often resembles the reaction of a person awakened in the middle of the night and told that his house is on fire. He runs outside in his pajamas to save his life. It is an instinctive, justified response that requires no investigation or deep understanding of fire’s destructive force.
Politics, however, is not fire.
It is driven by competing ideas, assumptions, and values—many of them debatable and nuanced.
So instead of panicking, let us examine Mamdani’s platform more carefully.
At its core, it aligns with a set of utopian political and economic ideas commonly grouped under the term Socialism.
Why Socialism Sounds So Appealing
Let us first acknowledge why Mamdani’s “Big Apple” (no pun intended) appears “good for eating, pleasing to the eye, and attractive to the mind.”
The phrasing is intentional. It echoes the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. One might ask: what was so special about that fruit? The Garden of Eden lacked no exotic or beautiful produce.
The appeal was not physical.
It was intellectual and existential.
The serpent promised: “On the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil.”
Here, the serpent exploited an innate human weakness: jealousy.
“What does G-d know that we do not?”
“Why should power, knowledge, and authority belong to Him alone?”
One might ask how jealousy could exist in a pre-sin world. The answer is that jealousy is not inherently evil. Jewish ethics distinguish between destructive envy and kinat sofrim—“scholarly jealousy”—which motivates growth, innovation, and achievement.
Knowledge is power.
The human desire for knowledge is insatiable—and it is the engine of progress.
That is why the Tree was called the Tree of Knowledge. Its fruit was seductive not because of its taste, but because of what it promised.
What Does This Have to Do with Socialism?
Everything.
Socialism is broadly defined as a political and economic philosophy in which key resources—industry, land, and capital—are owned, controlled, or regulated by the community rather than by private individuals. Its stated goal is social and economic equality.
But Socialism is not monolithic. Political science generally distinguishes between three types:
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM
The adjective matters less than the noun. The structure is what determines outcomes.
The Three Faces of Socialism
Social democracy preserves a free market (capitalism) but regulates it heavily to support social welfare. High taxes fund healthcare, education, and social safety nets.
Examples: Scandinavian countries.
Democratic socialism reduces private ownership significantly. Major industries are state-owned or run by cooperatives. Individual economic autonomy is diminished.
Examples: Kerala (India); Venezuela (early 2000s).
Venezuela’s attempt ended in hyperinflation, collapse of state industries, and catastrophic shortages of food and medicine.
Authoritarian socialism—the system I grew up under—was implemented in the USSR, Maoist China, and North Korea. In practice, it resulted in dictatorship, repression, corruption, and economic stagnation.
Historically, this form has always failed its people.
The Moral Appeal: Fairness
The driving force behind socialism is an emotional and moral one: fairness.
Why should a small group be enormously wealthy while the majority struggle?
Why should some have everything while others barely survive?
In this sense, there is little difference between Marxist socialism that fueled the Bolshevik Revolution and the modern socialism advocated by Mamdani.
But the beneficiaries are very different.
Then and Now: Russia vs. Generation Z
Early 20th-century Russian peasants were driven by desperation. The Tsar was utterly indifferent to their misery. When the choice is between starvation and rebellion, revolt becomes inevitable.
The Bolsheviks needed only a spark—“From the spark, the flame will rise.”
Germany’s Kaiser understood this and enabled Lenin to destabilize Russia during World War I.
The result?
A brutal civil war, mass executions, famine, repression—and ultimately, failure.
The peasants were illiterate, powerless, and desperate. They did not know better.
Generation Z, by contrast, grew up in unprecedented comfort. Yet many feel entitled to the promises socialism makes.
The common denominators between the two groups are striking:
A deep desire for justice and fairness, and human jealousy
The Jewish Perspective on Ownership
Judaism offers a profoundly different framework.
When Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was instructed “to work it and guard it.” He was given responsibility—without micromanagement. That responsibility created ownership and accountability.
Socialism, by subordinating individual ownership to collective ownership, erodes that accountability.
We lived this in the Soviet Union.
When everything belongs to “everyone,” nothing belongs to anyone. Motivation disappears. Accountability evaporates. Corruption flourishes. Nepotism becomes systemic. Theft becomes normalized.
Shelves are empty. Quality deteriorates. Bribery becomes a way of life.
Socialism promises Eden without responsibility, equality without effort, and knowledge without consequence. But history—and human nature—teach us otherwise. A society that denies individual ownership ultimately denies individual dignity. And when accountability disappears, so does justice.
