The rise to power of leaders who identify as democratic socialists, such as Mamdani, often sparks confusion and intense debate. For some, the term triggers fears associated with authoritarian regimes of the 20th century; for others, it represents a long-overdue agenda of social and economic justice. Yet democratic socialism, as practiced in modern democracies, is a clearly defined political current—and one that is fundamentally different from the authoritarian or dictatorial forms of socialism so often invoked in political attacks.
Mamdani’s early actions offer a clear example of what governing under this philosophy looks like in practice.
On his first day in office, Mamdani and his team announced concrete measures aimed at protecting tenants, enforcing accountability in the private sector, and using the powers of government within the existing democratic framework. His first major action was to intervene in the bankruptcy proceedings of Pinnacle Realty, a property management company with thousands of housing code violations and complaints across 83 buildings, as well as outstanding debts owed to the city.
Far from an arbitrary expropriation or a wholesale state takeover—hallmarks of authoritarian systems—the intervention relied on existing legal mechanisms to safeguard residents and ensure livable housing conditions. Mamdani even held a press conference inside one of Pinnacle’s buildings to publicly document the neglect faced by tenants, underscoring a central principle of democratic socialism: government must step in when the market fails and harms the community.
Democratic socialism is built on a foundational premise: democracy is non-negotiable. Its proponents support free and fair elections, separation of powers, freedom of the press, and the right to protest. They do not seek to abolish capitalism, but rather to regulate and correct its excesses so it serves the broader public, not just a privileged few.
This approach is reflected in Mamdani’s administrative structure, including the appointment of deputy mayors overseeing key areas such as Housing and Planning. The creation of teams like LIFT—tasked with identifying publicly owned land suitable for development—and SPEED—focused on eliminating bureaucratic barriers that raise construction costs—illustrates an active, pragmatic approach to governance, not state domination of the economy.
These decisions align with one of Mamdani’s core campaign promises: making the city more affordable, including proposals to freeze rents on a portion of the housing stock. These policies are debated, approved, and implemented through democratic institutions—not imposed indefinitely by decree or enforced through repression.
Compared to moderate Democrats, democratic socialists generally advocate for a stronger role for government in areas such as housing, healthcare, education, and labor rights. While centrist Democrats may favor market-based solutions with incremental adjustments, democratic socialists argue that structural inequality requires more direct and ambitious public intervention.
Compared to Republicans, the contrast is sharper. Republicans typically promote smaller government, lighter regulation, and greater reliance on the private sector to solve social problems. Democratic socialists, by contrast, contend that without decisive public action, markets tend to concentrate wealth, drive up the cost of living, and weaken protections for workers and tenants.
What Democratic Socialism Is Not
Perhaps the most persistent misconception is the equation of democratic socialism with authoritarian regimes of the past or present. Unlike the forms of socialism practiced under dictatorships such as Stalin’s Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, or Maduro’s Venezuela, democratic socialism:
- Does not eliminate elections or political pluralism
- Does not censor the press or criminalize dissent
- Does not centralize all economic power in the state
- Does not govern through fear or repression
Even Mamdani’s decision to revoke certain executive orders from the previous administration, led by moderate Democrat Eric Adams, followed established institutional procedures. According to an official statement, the move was intended to mark “a new beginning” for the administration, while leaving open the possibility of reissuing measures consistent with the new agenda. Such transitions are characteristic of a functioning democracy—not an authoritarian regime.
Why This Debate Resonates With Latino Communities
For many Latino families—particularly renters, workers in low-wage industries, and small business owners—the debate over democratic socialism is not theoretical. It intersects with daily realities: rising rents, overcrowded housing, limited access to healthcare, and vulnerability to economic shocks.
Policies focused on tenant protections, affordability, and labor enforcement are not abstract ideological statements; they are responses to conditions that disproportionately affect working-class communities across U.S. cities. Understanding what democratic socialism actually proposes allows voters to evaluate these policies on their merits—rather than through labels shaped by fear or misinformation.
In simple terms, a democratic socialist believes democracy should govern both politics and the economy. This perspective supports private property and entrepreneurship, while holding that government has a responsibility to ensure no one is excluded from access to housing, healthcare, education, and dignified living conditions.
Rather than imposing a rigid ideological model, democratic socialism—as embodied by Mamdani—presents itself as a political response to concrete challenges: rising housing costs, deepening inequality, and insufficient protections for working people. Its central proposition is straightforward: use public power transparently and democratically to rebalance a system that currently benefits a narrow few at the expense of the many.
