Opinion Row over Mamdani gets it wrong. Social democrats are actually good capitalists
Without Disraeli, Bismarck, Churchill or FDR, capitalism may not have done as well as it has today. 'Social Democracy,' Mamdani-style, places him squarely with this select group, and not at all with Stalin
Without Disraeli, Bismarck, Churchill or FDR, capitalism may not have done as well as it has today. ‘Social Democracy,’ Mamdani-style, places him squarely with this select group, and not at all with Stalin. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar) 
When the New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani confessed that he was a “social democrat,” many in Trump’s Republican Party saw red, literally. They called the young politician, of mixed Muslim and Hindu heritage, a communist who would grow up and become a Stalin before long. Imaginings took off. New York would become another Moscow! Worse, Fifth Avenue would grow onion domes like the Kremlin!
Such fears are misplaced if we take a look at recent history, say from 1870 onwards — that is, a little more than 150 years ago. Some of the most toasted conservatives of the past, whose crusty trail is sniffed up by the right wing even today, put in place many of the things that Mamdani hopes to do in New York. None of that made these earlier notables leftists. In fact, they are feted today as champions of capitalism.
To assess their legacy, let us wise up on what Mamdani has said so far to make his claim of being a social democrat ring true. The mayor-elect’s big-ticket item is “affordability”, particularly in connection with housing for the poor in New York City, affectionately called the “Big Apple”. That so many cannot get a decent bite of this metaphorical fruit, he argues, is because real estate has been captured by the filthy rich.
Likewise, Mamdani has also voiced concern for the less privileged, small businessperson, such as the ubiquitous neighbourhood grocers. They run “mom and pop stores,” as well as street corner bodegas that sell beer and smokes along with sandwiches on the go. The owners of these establishments are often first-generation Americans from countries where the population is predominantly brown, Black or even yellow.
This does not make Mamdani left-wing or anti-capitalist because social democrats are actually good capitalists. To get a handle on this, look at how some famous conservatives of Europe and the US neon-lit their names in history. They were not closet communists by a long shot, though they advocated clearly social democratic policies. In fact, they actually saved capitalism from angry unions and reckless robber barons.
Exactly 150 years ago, Benjamin Disraeli, the redoubtable conservative British Prime Minister, initiated a policy called the “Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act.” It was now the government’s responsibility to prevent landlord exploitation and provide proper housing for the poor. Don’t forget, Disraeli championed British imperialism as well.
Disraeli’s initiative ran four square counter to Frederick Engels and, in particular, to his oft-quoted work, The Condition of the Working Class in England. In this text, Engels, the Marxist, argued that capitalism’s rapacity and avarice were fully evident in the way it made the working class live in unhygienic hovels. The only way out, therefore, was a revolution. It was almost as if Disraeli was determined to prove Engels wrong.
About a decade after Disraeli, the “iron man” of Germany, Count Otto von Bismarck, set out to deflate the left wing by introducing a very social democratic “Health and Accident Insurance Act.” This policy provided medical insurance and compensation for workplace injuries. The initiative soon grew to include affordable housing for the poor. Ironically, Bismarck’s stated enemy then was the German Social Democratic Party.
In fact, Bismarck may have been more socialist than Mamdani. Unlike the latter, who has said little about rising health costs, this was the major focus for Bismarck. Like Disraeli before him, the German autocrat too not only preserved capitalism at home, but had extra-territorial ambitions as well. If Disraeli annexed Cyprus and laid claim to the Suez Canal, Bismarck routed France and strove hard to isolate it.
Winston Churchill, another famous conservative and imperialist to boot, delivered a surprisingly fulsome social democratic election manifesto in 1945. It not only resembled Britain’s Labour Party handout of that time but even Mamdani’s manifesto today. Well before Mamdani, Churchill had promised rent control and vowed that in “the first years of peace, the provision of homes will be the greatest domestic task.”
Again, like Bismarck, health was one of Churchill’s priority areas, but like Mamdani, childcare too was singled out for special emphasis. Also, Churchill was sympathetic to the “small man in business”, just as Mamdani wishes to protect the small corner store owners and bring down their grocery bills. If Churchill’s policy were implemented in contemporary Britain, it would help migrants in big cities the most.
After the 1929 Wall Street crash, Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) became a folk hero for saving capitalism in the US. He addressed affordability by encouraging employment in public works and by promoting the Tennessee Valley Project, which would supply cheap electricity. He also set up the state-run US Housing Authority to provide dwellings for the poor. This made home ownership immediately affordable to many.
In all these instances, established conservatives took clear “social democratic” positions that were definitely not anti-capitalist. If anything, their policies kept capitalism alive by prodding it to shed its earlier plundering instincts. Without Disraeli, Bismarck, Churchill or FDR, capitalism may not have done as well as it has today. “Social Democracy,” Mamdani-style, places him squarely with this select group, and not at all with Stalin.
Social democracy enjoys the best of both worlds. It has the social cake and democratically eats it too.
The writer is a sociologist
Share
