Zohran Mamdani's misguided warm collectivism

Once again, the ideological left gets it backwards

Those on the ideological left often have an upside-down view of the world - something prophesied in ancient times. In Isaiah 5:20, the prophet warned: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

One modern version of this confusion applies to progressive’s definition of sex and race. A friend of mine once observed that woke ideology is backwards because it believes sex is on a spectrum and race is binary. When in fact, sex is binary and race is on a spectrum.

Another disoriented view is the upside down mentality around individualism and collectivism.

Collectivism means putting groups over individuals, and this typically is cultivated as soon as people are born into this world - in a home setting where families prioritize relationships to one another over individual wants. Teaching children to share with others and do chores to contribute to the family unit, etc. Then over time, parents expect and should want children to be rugged individualists so they can be self-sufficient, independent, hard-working members driving the economic engine. Collectivist moral frameworks first, individualist economic endeavors later.

Not so with socialists, who expect collectivism economically, while nurturing a very individualist, petulant, self-entitled attitude.

This was loud and clear during the swearing in of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani when the democratic socialist gave that now infamous line: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Mamdani is referring to economics as he contrasts the American frontiersman archetype to the European socialist model, much like Herbert Hoover, who coined “rugged individualism.” Right before Hoover became president in 1928, he gave a speech using that term to describe an attitude of self-reliance, hard work and independence in contrast to a disposition of government-reliance seen in socialist Europe. It was a frame of mind, Hoover said, that produced “individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.”

In other words, a capitalist economy welcomes and fosters the rugged individualism that is needed to achieve “unparalleled greatness” for the most number of people. Need evidence? The top five wealthiest people in the world personify the rugged individualists who lifted millions of economic boats. Not due to socialism but thanks to American capitalism.

Here they are in order: Elon Musk (Tesla, PayPal, SpaceX, X); Larry Page (Alphabet); Jeff Bezos (Amazon); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Mark Zuckerberg (Meta); and Sergey Brin (Alphabet).

They in turn have not only employed hundreds of thousands of people, they’ve helped mint millionaires. In America, every day in 2024 about 1000 people became millionaires, and now the US accounts for 40% of all millionaires in the world.

Moreover, the millionaire threshold is not static, knocking the myth that generational wealth is the biggest factor behind economic success. One study in 2019 by the Federal Reserve showed that 75% of households that were millionaires were not in that category 10 years later, implying significant turnover. And about 75-80% of millionaires do not inherit their wealth, they achieve it through income, savings, investments and entrepreneurship.

Additionally, compared to the world, the vast majority of Americans, including those categorized as poor, would be considered upper-middle income earners while some would be high-income,” according to Pew Research.

In other words, capitalism may have its flaws such as producing inequality. But socialism hasn’t produced as much wealth, and certainly hasn’t ended inequality. One example is capitalist West Germany vs socialist East Germany. West Germany had about 3 times higher GDP per capita than East Germany right before reunification and income inequality existed in both places.

The downside of warm collectivism

Yes, there is a place for warm collectivism when it comes to economics, so Mamdani isn’t entirely off. We do have safety nets (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare programs, free library books, free schools, etc) in America. The problem is that they’ve gone out of control.

Medicare and Medicaid account for roughly 5.5% of GDP, up from 1.5% in 1975, according to CMS. Welfare costs were also around 1% in the early 1900s, but now hover around 3.5%. Another way to look at collectivism is counting all “transfer payments” (any money given to individuals without the government getting any product back). That number is around 16% of GDP. They may seem like relatively low ratios, but there is no accountability for government funds. Just look at the fraud in Minnesota. About half of Medicaid’s $18 billion in claims paid to Minnesota may be fraudulent. Half?

The government is terrible at managing money. At worst, it’s being cheated and at best, it’s funding a broken system. This is akin to an entrepreneur telling a venture capitalist that his or her business model is to raise continuous rounds because they don’t really know how to run a service or they don’t know if they’re being ripped off. No one would fund that. Why should taxpayers?

There’s many reasons why warm collectivism doesn’t work, and it’s not just fraud and abuse. The internet is awash with many essays exposing century’s worth of evidence that economic collectivism breaks down. From the LA Times article explaining how collectivism is “dead on arrival” to the WSJ article: Mamdani’s collectivism will turn cold quickly to Jonathan Turley’s metonymic headlined essay: “The Red Apple.” Yet it is very difficult to find any pundits, academics, or reporters writing about how collectivist (aka democratic socialist / communist) policies work. (Side note: I know Mamdani denies being a communist, but it’s hard to believe that when he just appointed Cea Weaver as tenant officer - a person who believes in the abolition of private property - a central tenet of communism.)

Moral frameworks and collectivism vs individualism

As mentioned above, where warm collectivism could be applied today is to moral frameworks that involve how we relate to one another. When we think of the 10 commandments, No. 5-10 are ethics that are relational. If collectivism is prioritizing the group over the individual - thou shall not harm, covet, steal, lie - pretty much land on the side of the group vs the one. And as a mom of a strong-willed 13-yr-old, my favorite is currently: “Thou shall obey your parents!”

Outside of the 10 commandments, the Bible also calls us not to be overly-dependent on others or ask for unnecessary demands or hardships on them. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:14 “I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you.” The Bible is also very clear about the obligations and roles of men and women as they relate to one another and society.

If we are to prioritize the group over the individual, then prioritizing the closest group to us - family - seems like a great place to start.

Yet, Mamdani and his ilk don’t like collectivism when it comes to moral frameworks that keep the family unit together. They prefer autonomy: to impose moral laws on oneself. Those laws are the right and freedom to make choices regardless of the betterment of society, including the freedom to have abortions (aka kill babies), the freedom to get “gender-affirming care” (aka mutilate and sterilize one’s body, even as a pre-pubescent kid), and freedom to be a burden to others by living on the streets without work requirements.

This all sounds freeing. Having no constraints or obligations to anyone; Manipulating one’s body because it’s cool; Hanging out on the streets without any care in the world.

Or it all sounds lonely, isolating, and purposeless, especially for adults who realize their life choices have left them with no one to care for themselves, but themselves.

Moreover, when a society instills a culture of social individualism and entitlement, how does it expect the same individuals to want to stop obsessing about themselves and work for the collective? The only way to achieve this collective outcome is for the government to use brute force on them.

Yikes. Warm collectivism? There’s nothing warm about that.

(Image source: Cato)