In his recent book Now, The People!: Revolution in the 21st Century, French socialist leader Jean Luc Melenchon declares “We are now seeing a historically novel social conflict. After the bourgeoisie and the proletarians, we now have a battle between ‘them and us,’ with two key players: the oligarchy and the people”. The book, in Melenchon’s words, “sets the people within the new social relations of today’s globalised civilisation: the age of the collective networks that enable and organise our entire existence.” With the fascistic Republican Party in power, launching a full assault on democracy and multiculturalism, and with the Democratic Party largely asleep at the wheel rather than providing even a superficial leadership of opposition, it’s not difficult then to see this battle between “them and us” taking shape in the streets of Los Angeles, New York City, and across the rest of the country.
In this intense political moment, socialists frequently declare the old order is cracking, echoing Gramsci that 'the new cannot be born.' The Democratic Party, despite its inability to meet the moment, remains the primary absorber of popular energy, while the right entrenches itself in culture wars, nationalism, and paranoid delusions. We know the people are increasingly squeezed, priced out, overworked, and alienated by a system that no longer serves them. Yet, despite this seemingly clear diagnosis, we seem trapped in a self-defeating cycle: Democrats harness anti-Trump sentiment to regain power, only to revert to an outmoded governance that paves the way for the return of fascist right populism. Socialists often assert that only we can break this cycle and allow a new world to be born – a declaration that, while true in principle, feels increasingly like a lament given our ongoing struggle to effectively disarticulate the hegemonic formation of the Democratic Party. It is within this contested and volatile political landscape, marked by both urgent necessity and persistent challenge, that Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral campaign must be understood.
Running unabashedly as a democratic socialist and presenting a progressive policy platform that at its core is about affordability in New York City, Zohran has defied and exceeded all expectations. He started far behind Andrew Cuomo, a figure buoyed by name recognition and pre-pandemic nostalgia, and yet he has made this race competitive in a way few thought possible. Against the odds, he has built momentum, drawn crowds, and forced serious debate around what it means to govern for the people, rather than the oligarchy. In doing so, his campaign has achieved something rare: it has crafted and articulated an independent vision of socialist politics into mainstream discourse without compromising its core principles. It has proven that the people of New York City are hungry for a bold, transformative vision that they can collectively identify with and be mobilized around.
And yet, even as Zohran closes the gap in the polls, some voting patterns remain instructive and hard to ignore. Similar to when Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2016 and 2020, Zohran’s support is concentrated among younger, white, college-educated voters, while it is limited among older and Black voters. It’s also puzzling that he has lost some union endorsements to an arch-neoliberal like Cuomo, who represents a mode of politics that has kept wages stagnant for decades. Therefore, as we celebrate the success and breakthroughs of Zohran’s campaign, we should also acknowledge its apparent limitations in building a social base and the deeper questions they raise about how we overcome them.
What does it mean to build a “people” in a deeply fragmented city and country? How do we construct a political frontier that feels real and urgent to working-class New Yorkers, not just in economic terms, but also emotionally, culturally, and ideologically? And perhaps most importantly: if socialism is going to win, how do we make it less of a subcultural creed and more of a shared struggle among millions?
Interregnum and the Populist Moment
Let’s return to the famous Gramsci quote alluded to earlier: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” This sound bite has become a hallmark of describing the chaotic political backdrop of the 21st century. It seems to capture the decay of neoliberal hegemony perfectly, the rise of right-wing nationalism, and the renewed energy of left-wing politics. During the interregnum, the battle over culture, identity, and visions of society is fierce!
As Ernesto Laclau writes in his book On Populist Reason, “Populism … is a strategy of constructing a political frontier that divides society into two camps, ‘us’ and ‘them’, and calling for the mobilization of the ‘underdog’ against the ‘powerful’. There is no simple opposition between a righteous ‘people’ and a corrupt layer of ‘elites’, conceived as pre-existing empirical entities. Rather, this binary can be constructed in a variety of ways.” Building on Laclau’s theory, and echoing Gramsci, Chantal Mouffe argues “the populist moment” arrived following the 2008 financial crisis, when the neoliberal hegemonic formation, solidified under Reagan and sustained through bipartisan consensus, began to unravel. In her words: “On the occasion of the economic crisis, a series of contradictions condensed, leading to what Gramsci calls an interregnum: a period of crisis during which several tenets of the consensus established around a hegemonic project are challenged. A solution to the crisis is not yet in sight, and this characterizes the ‘populist moment’ in which we find ourselves today.” Therefore, we see the right populism of the Tea Party and the MAGA movement, as well as a left-wing populism that is still struggling to emerge fully.
In 21st-century America, left-wing populism first came into focus during Occupy Wall Street in 2011. The slogan “We are the 99%” was one of the earliest attempts to articulate a clear political frontier, pitting the vast majority of working people against a narrow oligarchic elite that not only caused the financial crisis but also offloaded all the economic consequences onto the working class. Occupy pointed toward a new politics, but couldn’t yet build it. It lacked institutional structure, strategic clarity, and long-term vision. It was a spark, not a political movement.
That would come later with the rise of Bernie Sanders in 2016. Unlike Occupy, Sanders didn’t just critique income inequality—he ran for power. He contested the terrain of the Democratic Party and the presidential election. Identifying himself as a “democratic socialist,” Sanders named the enemy, the “millionaires and billionaires,” and identified the protagonists: the working-class Americans whose donations to his campaign averaged just $27.
Though Sanders ultimately lost the nomination, his campaign sparked the emergence of left populism in the U.S. It gave shape to the affective energy of Occupy and transformed it into a political current. Out of that rose the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its most well-known member, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. While AOC was never deeply embedded in DSA, both she and Sanders have given the term “socialism” positive connotations in the public consciousness rather than letting it remain a pejorative hurled from the right. Nowhere has the ensuing resurgence of socialist politics been more visible than in New York City, where the local DSA chapter became a robust political machine, electing city council and state assembly members, and eventually launching Zohran Mamdani’s historic mayoral campaign.
While Sanders and AOC galvanized a fledgling socialist movement and sparked a resurgence of interest in Marxism in the United States, they operated within a broader progressive framework, often downplaying or soft-pedaling the term itself when speaking to wider audiences. Many progressive pundits and politicians were perplexed and sometimes frustrated by the use of “democratic socialism,” arguing that the same policies could be described without invoking such a charged label. And they aren’t necessarily wrong - the term “democratic socialism” seems to have emotional resonance and symbolic power within the left populist project, but it has yet to contain a fully articulated ideological content. It can mean different things to different people, from public ownership to the means of production, to redistributive policies, to just values like dignity and justice. And over the past few years, AOC has increasingly distanced herself from DSA and presented her politics primarily as “progressive” rather than explicitly socialist. This has led to much controversy and debate within the DSA over how socialists position themselves in the Democratic Party (if at all), and the broader political culture in the country.
This progressive hedging, while understandable in a hostile political climate, has often come at a cost due to the limits of this more muted form of left populism. We saw this clearly in the 2021 mayoral election with Maya Wiley, a highly regarded progressive candidate, who, despite strong progressive endorsements including AOC, ultimately struggled to articulate a compelling, unifying vision capable of mobilizing a broad 'people' against the prevailing order represented by now Mayor Eric Adams. Her campaign, like others, focused primarily on policy or traditional progressive appeals, failed to establish a sharp enough political frontier or, as Mouffe would put it, generate the affective identification necessary to truly break through.
Left Populism and the Socialist Frontier
Zohran’s mayoral campaign is, therefore, when placed in this historical context, the latest and arguably most mature and confident expression of the left populist project that first formed with Occupy before finding political shape in Bernie Sanders’s presidential runs and further amplified with figures like AOC. Where Sanders and AOC often hedged or downplayed their identifications as democratic socialists, Zohran centers the term unambiguously. He doesn’t treat “socialist” as baggage, but as a political orientation: one that informs not just what he fights for, but how he fights and who he stands with.
Notably, as a result of this, his campaign sharpens the political frontier compared to his predecessors. It’s not hard to remember how Sanders largely avoided attacking Clinton in 2016, nor, in his own words, his “good friend” Joe Biden in 2020. Zohran, however, does not shy away from depicting Andrew Cuomo as a symbol of everything wrong with our current system: deep ties to billionaires, corporate donors, and the Democratic establishment; a history of corruption; and documented sexual harassment allegations. In doing so, he consistently frames the election not just as a battle over policy, but as a fight between two visions of politics itself: one rooted in oligarchy and corruption, and one rooted in popular struggle and accountability to the people.
Zohran will often point out that Cuomo and Trump are funded by many of the same billionaires. This reframes both the primary battle between the left and the center of the Democratic Party, as well as the partisan battle between the Democratic and Republican parties, into what for the left is the primary social conflict between the people and a bipartisan oligarchy. This undercuts Cuomo and much of the Democratic Party’s source of legitimacy, which hinges on positioning themselves as the “safe” opposition to Trump. Instead, Zohran positions the left populists as the true fighters and opponents against the fascist right populism represented by Trump.
Constructing and sharpening the political frontier is not just about rhetoric. Zohran’s campaign has also demonstrated strategic maturity in how it builds coalitions. While Sanders often struggled to define his relationship with the Democratic establishment, Zohran has navigated this terrain carefully. He has been willing to collaborate with other candidates in the race, such as Brad Lander, recognizing the importance of alliances with progressive liberals while still maintaining a distinct socialist identity and vision. Although this kind of coalition-building is aided by ranked-choice voting in NYC, its success still reflects a political frontier: rather than simply aligning with progressives as the “best possible” option, Zohran has positioned himself as the political center of gravity, pulling other candidates toward his platform. Indeed, for a well-regarded progressive like Brad Lander, whose own mayoral campaign might otherwise have been obscured or felt somewhat diffuse, aligning with Zohran’s sharp, unapologetically socialist vision served to highlight his progressive bona fides and commitment to improving the welfare of working-class New Yorkers. It was Zohran's magnetic socialist pole that allowed Lander's progressive principles to truly shine, giving his campaign a renewed sense of purpose and clarity it otherwise lacked. By bringing left liberals to his side and pointing out the commonality between Cuomo and Trump on the other side, the Zohran campaign has framed the conflict between “them” and “us” in a way that better enables socialist politics.
Despite the still hazy public understanding of 'socialism' and the historical burden of the label in American discourse, it is precisely the principles inherent in this socialist orientation—a systemic critique of capitalism, an unwavering commitment to collective well-being over private profit, and a belief in the transformative power of popular struggle—that enable Zohran to accomplish all of this in a way that progressive liberals, usually confined to incremental reforms within the existing system, are only able to do partially. His charisma certainly plays a role, but it is deeply intertwined with and amplified by the clarity and moral force derived from his socialist framework.
Affects and Base Building
As mentioned earlier, however, Zohran still trains behind Cuomo with certain demographics, including Black and older voters. One would think these groups would most benefit from Zohran’s policies. But policy alignment is not sufficient to build a people. If we are to expand our base, we must ask the question: what kind of affective and cultural work is still missing? Why do some communities see themselves as part of the “us” we are trying to build, while others don’t?
Mouffe offers an insightful critique of the tendency of left rationalism, which while not necessarily applicable to Zohran himself, can certainly be seen among the socialists that have emerged in the US under the populist moment, including those in the DSA. She notes, “The success of such a movement depends on its capacity to recognize the affective dimension at play in the construction of collective forms of identification. To generate adhesion, it needs to convey effects that resonate with people’s concerns and personal experiences.” She continues, “It is dispiriting to see so many radicals and socialists dedicating all their energy to the elaboration of policies and programmes they are convinced people will accept by virtue of their superior rationality, while neglecting to ask how to generate the affects that will give force to those policies.”
This critique finds practical resonance in the challenges of mobilizing key constituencies in the final days of the mayoral race in NYC’s deeply fragmented urban landscape. While a progressive platform may address broad economic needs, translating that into popular support requires understanding the nuanced realities of different communities. A rent freeze might benefit millions of tenants, but this does not automatically overcome the existing disengagement among many working-class voters. In his recent article “Zo-mentum,” writer Michael Lange describes how these “less politically engaged voters” are not always reached through conventional channels: they may be less “online” in typical social media spaces, relying on more traditional media like television - which makes them more out of reach of the Zohran campaign’s impressive social media game which is centered around affective viral video clips. Furthermore, the political calculus of these constituencies, especially the older ones, is often shaped by immediate street-level concerns such as perceived safety, quality of life issues, or anxieties stemming from social change. This combination of lived experiences and fragmented media consumption helps explain why, in past mayoral races, some low-turnout neighborhoods, despite facing significant economic hardship, gravitated towards candidates emphasizing law and order over progressive policies.
DSA as a whole still struggles to translate socialist politics into a compelling, popular common sense for these demographics of Americans. If we want to expand beyond our current base, we need to invest more deeply in the cultural and affective dimensions of politics, especially if we hope to win over constituencies who may agree with our policies, but don’t yet feel seen or represented by our movement. It is this challenge within the left for achieving broader resonance that Zohran’s campaign offers many crucial lessons.
Towards a New Popular Common Sense
Zohran’s campaign has proven that unabashedly socialist politics can be popular, and this is an important point in the development of left populism. The relative success of this form of politics signals not just a shift in voter preferences but the potential for a deeper, systemic, and hegemonic transformation. Just as Ronald Reagan erected a political frontier to disarticulate key aspects of the New Deal hegemony and establish a new era with popular consent, socialists find themselves in a similar juncture. The task then is to launch a counter-hegemonic offensive against this decaying but still firmly rooted neoliberalism. This means socialism cannot just win at the ballot box, but also win the culture war. The task of socialists is to, as Gramsci describes, aid the development of a new popular common sense that comes from a precise political subject. This popular common sense entails a set of shared assumptions, values, and expectations about what kind of society we want, and who gets to govern.
The emergence of a new popular common sense would mean a transformation in how people understand the world, often beginning with what feels “natural” or “obvious.” Today, many Americans agree with policies proposed by socialist politicians, such as higher wages and improved public welfare, but still associate the concept of “socialism” with bureaucracy, inefficiency, or ideological extremism. These are not just misunderstandings; they are a result of the hegemonic project of neoliberalism, which has shaped our collective imagination for decades.
This tendency of liberals to like the policy proposals that emanate from a socialist politics, but remain apprehensive about the label socialism, can be clearly seen when Zohran was interviewed on The Breakfast Club radio show. When asked why he insists on calling himself a “democratic socialist” when it’s a “dirty word,” Zohran responded that he doesn’t think it should be, and talked about how he identifies socialism with dignity and common sense policies, and he talks about how he was inspired by Bernie Sanders and AOC identifying with the term as well. The host, Charlemagne, didn’t seem convinced, pointing out that Sanders and AOC had found success by not focusing on the word, and rather focusing directly on the policies that people care about.
There are probably several instances of this type of interaction, where people sympathetic to progressive policies don’t understand why they need to be tied to a socialist identification. While Zohran’s campaign has been impressive at building affect and identification, DSA and the socialist movement in the United States still struggle to concretize the meaning of socialism into everyday language. DSA knows how to organize and run campaigns, and Zohran’s campaign shows that DSA is getting better at articulating frontiers. But the task still lies ahead to build a broad cultural framework that makes socialism feel intuitive, familiar, and aspirational - especially among the communities that don’t already identify with socialist politics.
Zohran’s interview with the Bloomberg podcast Odd Lots is similarly instructive in this regard. When asking how he could convince New Yorkers that a publicly run grocery store would be viable, the interviewer, Joe Weisenthal, raised a broader concern about the government’s ability to run efficient and quality services, pointing to the poor track record of NYCHA housing as an example. Zohran had to defend the very idea that public institutions can be excellent, efficient, and democratic. While this seems like a question about policy and logistics, it’s really a question about ideology and visions of society. Weisenthal’s question represented a popular common sense - the taken-for-granted beliefs that shape how people interpret the world. Since the Reagan era, common sense has held that “public” means slow, inefficient, and corrupt. This perception has been shaped by privatization, austerity, and anti-socialist narratives.
Mouffe talks about how rational arguments alone are not sufficient to shift this consensus. “What moves people to act are affects and the identifications in which those affects are inscribed… Abstract ideas, although they might be important in elaborating theories, are not what make people act politically… because they do not convey the affective force that is indispensable for acquiring real power.” Building a socialist consensus that appeals beyond our subculture means investing in reshaping the ideological terrain. Socialism will not win by being “correct.” It must become credible, concrete, and emotionally resonant.
Words like “efficiency,” “freedom,” and even “socialism” do not carry fixed meanings. They’re what Laclau refers to as “floating signifiers”, contested symbols that different political projects try to anchor to their vision. Both the left and the right will champion “economic efficiency," but for the left that means reducing wasteful spending in housing or healthcare, for the right means austerity and privatization of services. Both sides fight to articulate their version of reality - to define what "efficiency" really means in practice. Therefore, defending policies based on publicly owned services is not just about policy itself but about reclaiming the narrative over society. If socialist politics is going to win, we need to do more than promise better outcomes - we must reshape the way people understand the world.
A New World to Win
Although this is all being written before election day and before the results of the primary are known, it’s hopefully not too soon to say that Zohran’s campaign has illuminated a path for socialist politics, demonstrating that a forthright socialist vision can capture public imagination and sharply define the conflict between the people and the oligarchy. Zohran’s breakthrough arrives in the midst of the Gramscian “interregnum,” a period where the old neoliberal hegemony is dying, yet the “new cannot be born.” The enduring struggle during the interregnum lies both in establishing a clear political frontier - pitting “us” against “them,” and more fundamentally, in cultivating a new popular common sense that transcends the current subcultural appeal of socialism. As we’ve seen, while Zohran’s campaign expertly constructs this frontier, the challenge of mobilizing key demographics into the movement and overcoming the ingrained public apprehension towards the term “socialism” persists.
This is where the theoretical insights of Gramsci, Laclau, and Mouffe, rooted in or expanding upon the Marxist tradition, become helpful. Their work clarifies that a truly transformative politics is not merely about presenting rationally superior policies. It demands a rigorous engagement with the “culture war,” reshaping what feels like “common sense” in public life. The vague and often pejorative understanding of “socialism” needs to be supplanted with a concrete, emotionally resonant, and widely understood ideological content.
In this context, we can recall Karl Marx: “Communism [or socialism, if you like] is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” Zohran’s policies - be it rent freezes or publicly owned grocery stores - are obviously not inherently socialist in and of themselves, but this is beside the point. The policies are auxiliary, and Zohran’s campaign is not about implementing “socialist policies” but about making an appeal for support based on the direction socialists would like to take the people. In doing so, we can see concrete manifestations of the “real movement.” The conditions of this movement, as well as its trajectory and potential, are indeed a direct result of the very premises of the populist moment now in existence in New York City, as well as the rest of the country.
For the “new” to truly be born, the socialist principles that have propelled Zohran’s campaign must not remain abstract ideas. They must be forged into a credible, concrete vision that generates powerful affects and identifications, allowing millions to see their own concerns and aspirations reflected in the socialist struggle. The stakes of this interregnum are too high for socialism to remain a “lament” from a handful of intellectuals and subculturists. Zohran’s campaign has shown that people are hungry for a bold, transformative alternative mode of politics. The task ahead for socialists is to fully articulate and embody this alternative, making the new world not just desirable, but deeply felt and politically inevitable.