And many on the left are deeply indoctrinated as well. You know you are indoctrinated if you believe in the law of supply and demand as relevant to fixing our economy here in New Zealand. For example you are deeply indoctrinated if you believe that to fix the affordable housing crisis you need less restrictions on market supply of housing, which is nothing other than a facist attack on community involvement in local planning decisions – an attack some in the Greens and Labour have done.
And if you are surprised or shocked at this statement because to you demand and supply is simply a description of the real world; then that is a first step to understanding your deep indoctrination.
People believe demand and supply are forces in the real world because the concepts are very close to actual real forces in our natural world. But they are different. For example scarcity is a real force that drives behaviour in the real world; like demand for a product that is scarce. But demand in an economic sense (of demand and supply) is only what is requested for; by money.
So if people have a huge demand for things like, affordable housing or cheaper groceries but they don’t have a lot of money; then they can’t trigger the market forces to supply that real need because the supplier needs to maximise their profits and so the market always aims to drive up prices, and supply to those who can pay top dollar.
And if you say the market doesn’t always maximise profit; but think if the supplier only supplied at a lower price then their competitors will get the best jobs and higher profit margins per job. It’s simply not true that as your prices are lower you will get more work and drive down prices. If you have too much work you put up your prices. The private market simply has all the wrong incentives to actually push prices lower. The market fails at core needs because money is not held by those with the need and therefore there is no driver to supply those needs.
And if you say I’m misrepresenting capitalism as e.g, ‘affordable housing’ is not a definable thing that is supplied directly but a consequence of supply. Then that is a false accusation. I live in the real world where relative concepts like ‘affordable housing’ exist because we see the effects of it. Every capitalist supply has a price and that price is what determines supply for a capitalist. For example affordable cars are marketed as such, but now days we are sold the illusion of affordable cars by loose financing laws which allow prices to be pushed up because they offer loans. This is the primary business model of car dealerships; as predatory lenders. Affordable is a core concept in most people’s lives but it can’t drive price.
And so much more core capitalist logic and values is a rotten door, such as – ‘you know better than government about how to spend your money, ergo no taxes’; and that, ‘personal free choice’ is the best mechanism to determine what is most efficient or best to be produced for society. This is a headless/brainless vision of society which can only be based on short term thinking. It’s a selfish ideal about what ‘I need’ to survive and do well. Its logic is proven false by capitalism’s inability to deal with the climate crisis, or air pollution, or any other systemic problem. Strong countries have strong governments that are well funded.
We can see capitalist logic failing all around us but the failings are constantly being blamed on ‘state’ inefficiency. And we know it is actually capitalism’s failings because capitalism is the dominant supplier of goods and services in NZ. The mantra that government expenditure should not exceed about 30% of GDP is largely adhered to. Capitalism is creating the very problems and the crisis’s that it screams about fixing.
The solutions are obvious; we need to get back to more government supply of core goods and services to keep prices down, and we need money to fund this.
John Maynard Keynes thought government expenditure should be about 70 or 80% of GDP. Because needs like education, health care, housing, industrial production are core needs. Capitalism simply wastes money on frivolous and non core things. Trying to get to Mars when our planet is struggling. Plastic disposable products that are poisoning our environment. Pumping our foods full of fats and sugars so we will stay loyal and addicted customers. Obesity and waste are all the result of capitalism. Don’t waste your time with; ‘what about socialism failed’. The solutions are clear and economic, not political posturing.
Labour and the Greens have been poorly led by an economic vision of assisting capitalism to deliver for a long time. Get back to the roots of NZ being a mixed economy. Make capitalism pay its taxes because that is the purpose of taxation; to tax the points where wealth accumulates and redistribute it. Then the whole economy will work better.
Capitalism is bad until you look at the alternative.
While not perfect millions have been moved out of poverty and given hope by this system
It is in the hands of the people to improve and make fairer.
If millions have been moved out of poverty, why is poverty growing in this country? These two things cannot be true at the same time, so one of these things must be false. And the stats produced in this country seem to show that poverty is growing in this country.
Depends if you are considering absolute poverty or relative poverty.
A lot of people feel quite satisfied with themselves even if their relatives are living in poverty, and think it’s their fault if they haven’t got sorted. And that’s their absolute last word.
Trevor is talking about generalities. Yes, millions have seen their living conditions improved under capitalism. Third World living conditions lifted. Trickle down to the masses. The millions. But at the same time its very uneven, wherever one looks. Under capitalism some become very, very wealthy; others enable that wealth and skim the cream off the top; others are born into a world where inherited social capital enables them to play the system well; for others its a constant struggle to get ahead, as the saying goes, arguably because they simply don’t earn enough in the job market and/or have large families they cannot easily support; and for those at the very bottom of the system, well, it ain’t too good either. Of course that too is a a generalization. And let’s be frank, what’s changed since the 18th Century? From the middle ages? Same same but different? Except there’s a voice somewhere saying its all a hellava lot better for a good many, not only wealthy folk with capital.
Without capitalism where would we be? Living with its precursor mercantile capitalism? Slavery? Still with feudalism – but at least with our own means of production – but praying there’s not a production failure due to inclement weather conditions, a potato blight, or some overlord who is taking it all to fight off enemies. State Socialism? Communism? A hybrid system of some kind?
Perhaps what JM is getting at is that Capitalism (big C) – or is that a certain kind of Capitalism – has now become the default economic logic, globally, preceded over by the metaphors we now live by.
So what are the alternatives you are talking about here Trevor, I am curious to know?
‘Capitalism is bad until you look at the alternative.’
Yes let us look at socialism as practised in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands and other countries that provide free health and affordable housing. This is paid for a system of taxation that means the burden is carried fairly.
Let us look at Welfare State Socialism as practised in New Zealand and introduced by Labour governments that believed in ‘State Socialism’.
Even under its reduced remnant today it means an elderly person with, for example, cancer receives free treatment at a public hospital( that this service is not now completely adequate or timely is actually the fault of capitalists in government who refuse a fair taxation system).
Under orthodox capitalism such a person could receive charitable aid, or pay for medical treatment until funds run out or just die.
Anyone who thinks I exaggerate should revisit the period when Jenny Shipley was Minister of Health and Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance.
1993′ Shipley was named minister of health; in this position she oversaw a number of reforms, including a requirement that hospitals and clinics earn a profit and several measures intended to lower the country’s abortion rate.’ Encyclopedia Britannica.
Only medical professionals and their ethics prevented people with serious illnesses from being abandoned and left to die.
However, if the coalition is re-elected we may yet see this done in the name of capitalism(something for you to look forward to Trevor)
Likewise under orthodox capitalism A man who lost his job, had a sick wife and a family to support would be offered the choice of workhouse charity(where families were often separated) starvation or turning to crime. ‘ No Good deed goes unpunished’. New Zealand today is full of Paula Bennetts, John Keys, Trevors who were ,and still are, supported not by capitalism but socialism and remain hypocrites to the end.
RESTORE STATE SOCIALISM IN AOTEAROA! DESTROY CAPITALISM!
Good heavens.
Good analysis. State socialism would be my like. If it means I am one of those having to pay more tax, then I will. This whole promotion of private hospitals is a nonsense, everybody knows if something goes wrong with an operation the patient is moved into the public holidays. No one with a heart attack goes to a private hospital! I wish it were like the NHS that does not allow doctors etc to work in part of both private and public.
“many on the left are indoctrinated as well”. Yes, although the contemporary left’s preferred ideology is “white man, bad”.
Yes, it’s true that those countries redistribute wealth — but that wealth has to be created first. You cannot redistribute what you do not produce. Wealth comes from making goods and services, whether through manufacturing, agriculture, natural resources, or other high-value industries.
Norway funds its generous welfare state largely through oil and gas revenues. New Zealand, by contrast, actively baulks at exploiting its own oil and gas resources, having effectively shut down new exploration. Historically, NZ built it built its prosperity on massive agricultural exports to the UK, which is why it ranked among the richest countries in the world by the 1950s.
Regardless of whether an economy is labelled “capitalist” or “socialist”, it must be productive if it is to sustain living standards. As Elon Musk puts it, you have to make stuff to get stuff. The real issue is not ideology, but whether a society has the institutions and incentives needed to actually produce wealth — and only then decide how to distribute it.
Well said. Scandinavia has never been “socialist” – they have a mixed economy with a vigorous productive sector (making high-value goods), and high taxes to fund strong public services.
If NZ has lots of oil and gas it would have been found by now. The issue is that too many businesses rely on high margins instead of high productivity to survive so we have a high cost low productivity economy as a result. The clowns at Fonterra decided that adding value was too hard and took a quick profit instead although you can be sure that they will eventually lose from it as bulk milk prices eventually collapse.
What useful necessary thing does Eion Musk make? Whatever it is let’s all make it and get rich like him. Because getting rich is what we were born to do and the highest achievement we can manage, money is the magic beans, and that’s the answer to lif, eh! All the pondering and soul-searching and reaching to the heights of achievement of the accumulating centuries, using the superior intellect we have comes down to getting money and climbing up on other people’s bodies?
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands…. All capitalist counties lol. Jeez some brain dead among us. They just happen to have higher taxes (not that much higher) and a better funded social safety net. Helps they have less intergeneration dropkicks of course.
Why do some of these countries have fewer intergeneration dropkicks. As someone who is deeply opposed to the concept of prisons then I looked at what the Nordic countries do with their prisoners. Everyone has to work for a trade certificate, everyone has to have drug counselling, mental counselling. Prisons are an extraordinary waste of money and people. People are plonked there for idiotic ‘crimes’. We need 1 prison for the whole country, or small prisons in every centre. These would cater for the murderers, rapists and some others who will never be cured of their urges e.g. paedophiles. Long term some of these people would live in self contained flats on a prison compound, looking after themselves and leading relatively normal lives without being able to carry out their urges. We have a totally uninformed view of paedophiles. I assume that people who are attracted to abusing children in this way have a brain wiring issue. A bit like an addiction I expect.
Then we have the oxymoron of the military who train in hate theory so that wherever you are sent to shoot others you by then believe that they are evil. Not hard for governments and their state controlled arms to get all this across.
Imagine all of these people post getting support for a trade and counselling etc. instead of 2 years lock up cleaning our rivers picking up litter and many other things. Prisons have little to do with rehabilitation, respect, kindness etc.
Thanks Stephen, excellent post.
I agree that prisons should only be used for public safety – rapists, paedophiles, violent offenders, murderers, drug traffickers, and perhaps our worst white collar criminals.
Petty thieves and burglars who are not violent should not be imprisoned but made to do community service. Violent criminals, and I mean people who beat up people unprovoked should ALWAYS be imprisoned. People who randomly attack women unprovoked should be in prison a huge length of time. People who get in a scrap – that is a different thing, it should be community service.
Simple really when you look quickly at crime and punishment. And women who get attacked, unprovoked. How do we deal with the problem when the woman is provoking?
If we really care we will help each person from childhood to extend themselves and find their own gifts, and as adults help them to use their gifts for their own or state, community benefit and be paid to the extent they can live adequately and have their own place to feel secure in. That would cut a lot of smaller law breaking and leave the field for the rich and grasping.
You are talking of an ideal. Compared to most countries in the world people in NZ are already extremely wealthy. Regardless the wealth of a country or how well people are looked after, statistically there will always be psychos, and rapists and murderers and paedophiles. Society needs protection from them.
No I’m not just talking of an ideal I am twriting down a plan that would work. But people like you Mark are full of it, and whatever it is, there is no beneficial result for the large part of the population that is just getting by and need a better deal for not much more money. And you wouldn’t be worse off for ensuring those people get that, from your people spreading it around.
In monetary terms white colour criminals are the worst and yet little money is poured into ensuring that they are made to pay for all their frauds which cost this country millions. Personally I would like to see them cleaning our rivers and painting pensioners cottage.
And they exploit their natural oil and gas resources (Norway), and make and sell shitloads of stuff. Only then can you have a decent social safety net. And some of that wealth of course comes from imperial exploitation – legacy wealth and advantage.
That is why developing countries are desperate to, well, develop. That is the priority. Without development you simply cannot magic a first world public health system where a single dose of cancer drug is 10 or 20 years the earnings of an average person.
Development and building and making stuff, a thriving economy, is the prerequisite to a ‘better funded social safety net’. Places like Singapore understood this well, they poured everything into developing their economy, while at the same time excellent social policies have meant the vast majority of their people are properly housed, with excellent medical care.
That is why developing countries are desperate to, well, develop
Not sure about that, if developing is allowing the US to come in and steal your resources. What countries has the US done this too and continues to do?
Many many many – the bullies of the world.
I think Singapore relies on lots of cheap labour – this is a problem that we have also.
Much of your article is based on a call-to-an-expert: “John Maynard Keynes thought government expenditure should be about 70 or 80% of GDP”.
I cannot find the quote anywhere, and a search of the interweb suggests that he did not prescribe government spending as a percentage of GDP. Instead, the government should have a counter-cyclical spending policy: surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. Politicians seem to forget about the surplus part……or horror, horror -austerity.
Reply to ‘David in aus’ – See Professor James R Crotty, ‘Keynes against Capitalism: his economic Case for Liberal Socialism’. Professor Crotty also made some You tube videos/interviews before he died; ‘We were wrong about Keynes’ and, ‘Crotty on Keynes on Competition’ are good.
Isms that is what we are indoctrinated in. Not nation-managing practicalities drawing in all citizens who get the chance to be reliable decision makers after studying on the requirements and gaining knowledge of drains, arts, hamlets (small self-sufficient suburbs with work and amenities close at hand to housing with some green areas for fun and nature), transport, advanced study opportunities and close halls of learning, meeting rooms – perhaps added to free libraries, repair shops, trade and practical training courses buildings, etc etc Not large buildings fanciful shaped, costing millions that we won’t have in these days and reciting smartly the old adage – Build the whatever and the people will come’. Stuff that, the people involved may do a great job, but they don’t have to wait to be paid themselves, and perhaps the people can’t afford the prices required to pay for using the thing.
Kiwis have been pretentious since the start I think. What we did ourselves was always disdained. Now, embrace our weirdness, enjoy it and those who don’t like our home-made are just tossers. Give them the finger, mentally of course. Start with the requirements and make people work at being a citizen and having a vote. Humans are too tricky at getting into places of some power, doesn’t have to be much, and then they start pulling a fast one on those who seem a bit dim. Admit it that’s how we often are, not us personally of course.
Building a society of knowledgable, strong-minded and amiable people would make NZAO a great place to live and anything we didn’t have we could manage without by working together, or find a way to get one. Please note that at the present time, the aim seems to be to stop people from being capable, and to make it hard to know the facts – the algorithm will work out the cost of sending your parcel if you enter the h,l,d, and weight. That is what I found when I wanted actual charges and size limits so I could work it out myself. It’s a common thing, citizen groups are discouraged from caring about some service, volunteering, in favour of contracting work out to some overseas franchise etc. Retired people on a honorarium would enjoy having a small say and involvement. Perhaps the machine and bike fans could do more conserving, planting, instead of ruining hills making them unstable with tracks.
Jesus H christ did anyone read the article? He says we should decide what to do by learning from the past, facing real problems and imbalances, and not lose ourselves in ideological directions or pipe dreams of any kind as if there is no alternative. You know, keep it real, stay awake, don’t disappear up our own buttholes. Therefore, a mixed economy to suit our conditions. How hard is that? The rest of you argue “yes but if we can’t fuck everyone over right now we must go back to an earlier stage of fuckwittery!” READ THE ARTICLE
Capitalism is an operating system.
What’s the opposite of capitalism?
It’s not what many people think.
The opposite of capitalism is democracy.
Capitalism is not democratic, capitalism is autocratic.
Every expansion in the democratic franchise, has had to be fought for tooth and nail, against opposition from capitalism.
Every scrap of democracy that we do have, is under constant threat of being rolled back by capitalism.
Democracy is an operating system in opposition to capitalism.
Democracy is always under constant attack from Capitalism.
Choose democracy this election
I don’t know what you will choose, I know what I will.
I will not accept limits to voter registration
I will oppose limits on local democracy
I will reject the four year term
I will support ‘Make it 16’.
Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to lose voting right
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/07/24/hundreds-of-thousands-of-voters-affected-by-planned-electoral-changes/
Push to lengthen parliamentary terms, what you need to know.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/571904/four-or-three-years-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-push-to-lengthen-parliamentary-terms
Removing local democracy ‘Wellbeings’ Democracy threatened
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/567339/local-democracy-under-threat-officials-warn-against-removing-council-four-wellbeings
Supreme Court rules ‘Fundamental Right to vote’
https://www.makeit16.org.nz/
The opposite of capitalism is not democracy. They operate in different spheres. Democracy is a political system whilst capitalism is an economic system.
They are not inherently contradictory and can (and often do) coexist.
The opposite of capitalism is generally considered to be socialism – an economic system where the means of production are collectively owned. As opposed to capitalism where the means of production are based on private ownership, free markets and profit driven enterprise.
Michael Scott January 1, 2026 At 4:41 pm
“The opposite of capitalism is not democracy. They operate in different spheres…..”
Sure some would like it that way.
ACT Party policy is to limit politics to as few ‘spheres’ as possible.
You often hear them say it, “Don’t make it political”, “You are making it political”, or “Don’t bring politics into it”.
Capitalism and democracy are diametricaly opposed.
ACT are the representatives of the minority of billionaires and millionaires in our society. To Act democracy must not extend into ‘spheres’ that affect the bottom line of their party donars and support base.
As the representative of a tiny minority in our society, ACT have had to be assisted into our democratic parliament through the Epsom gerrymander.
To ACT democracy is a swear word, they call it being too political, What ACT MPs mean when they say something is too political, is it is too democratic .
Martyn Bradbury has said the Right want to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub.
With the democratic mandate he has been given by the voters of New York, Zohran Mamdani argues the opposite – Mamdani says his administration is going to govern New York ‘expansively and audaciously’.
From the Guardian:
Zohran Mamdani vows to govern New York ‘expansively and audaciously’…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jan/01/zohran-mamdani-inauguration-mayor-new-york
“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” Zohran Mamdani.
Excerpts:
For as long as we can remember, the working people of New York have been told by the wealthy and the well-connected that power does not belong in their hands…..
…..we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few. New York, tonight you have delivered. A mandate for change. A mandate for a new kind of politics. A mandate for a city we can afford. And a mandate for a government that delivers exactly that…..
….We will fight for you, because we are you…..
More than a million of us stood in our churches, in gymnasiums, in community centers, as we filled in the ledger of democracy.
…..no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now, it is something that we do.
…..This will be an age where New Yorkers expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt. Central to that vision will be the most ambitious agenda to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that this city has seen since the days of Fiorello La Guardia: an agenda that will freeze the rents for more than 2 million rent-stabilized tenants, make buses fast and free, and deliver universal childcare across our city…..
We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.
Reply to Michael Scott of 1/1/26; capitalism and democracy unfortunately do not operate in separate spheres. We live on one sphere, the world; and the ideas of economics are not separate from political ideas in the world. Individuals can live their personal lives with a sense of ignoring the other sphere; but really they are completely intertwined and co-dependent.
The proof is seen in the United States with a crazy idiot in charge because desperate people in a democracy lashed out politically to push for change because their lives are economically declining. And the driver of that economic decline is that more and more of the economic pie is being eaten by fewer and fewer people. And capitalism is the system that allows and facilitates the centralisation of wealth. The end of capitalism is not the end of trade, or working, or all businesses and buying and selling. The end of capitalism is simply the removal of the ability to have tools and systems that allow the centralisation of money into fewer and fewer private hands, i.e. we need to end the ‘global corporate states’; which have replaced nationalism states.
I think you over simplify Stephen. One sphere the world – the material. The rest comes from our heads, and there are many spheres arising from that. People just gather under designated umbrellas.. But each person has a slightly different idea, and keeping people’s minds trained on the important points around which that sphere is built is a major task, sissyphus type. You must know that by now.
You surely can’t believe there is only black and white and grey, as the colours will sneak out say in Rainbow- style, and Trans-form themselves. Perhaps we just have to get less permeable systems and keep them adequately defined to allow for some slippage without losing the core reality.
This reply is to Stephen Minto and Pat O’Dea. When I am optimistic I look at our polity and see capitalism, socialism, liberalism and conservatism all working well together to deliver the society most of us want.
We can’t get rid of capitalism because it is the “ism” that creates the wealth. Its genius is that it rewards people for solving other peoples problems.
I like Pats analogy of capitalism as an operating system. And like all software it has bugs. Monopolies form, workers are exploited and profits are not fairly shared. That’s where socialism comes in. Its focus and strength is redistribution. We socialise what we agree should all pay for- education, health and much more. Socialism fights for the rights of workers and beneficiaries and demands that the rich pay the majority of tax.
Capitalism can’t do fairness and socialism has a poor record of wealth creation. But they can get along together well. Capitalism creating wealth and socialism distributing it in the manner and balance determined by voters every three years.
It’s jaw-dropping how we have allowed money, a manufactured item dreamed up by our brains, to overcome all the other impulses and ideas of what we should strive for in life, what makes us noble in the descriptive emotional sense.
Here is a highly-coloured trip through the world of high-debt finance. Watch out that it doesn’t trip you up further than already!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRINNEkee6Q
How the US is quietly erasing $38 trillion in debt.
Capitalism is an operating system running society, not the only one possible, but the only one currently running.
An operating system for society can be compared to any complex integrated networked operating system, like the operating system running computers for instance
According to Wikipedia some of the common features of an operating system are;
Process management
Memory management
File system
Hardware drivers
Networking
Security
Input/output
You can make a similar list for society
Process management – government
Memory management – “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” George Orwell ie. propaganda
File system – libraries/Museums/government archives/Data Centres/retrieval systems, schools, universities
Device drivers – factories/farms/warehouses/distribution systems/shopping centres/retail outlets
Networking – media/social media/telecoms/internet/high level diplomacy/trade deals
Security – military/police/courts/prisons/Secret Service/MIC
Input/output – Resources and labour/Goods and services
The current operating system for all these things is Capitalism 2.0
Democracy is like a virus in the system, capitalism 1.0 originally operated without it, and in many places and instances still does.
Autocracy/dictatorship is the default, which capitalism continualy tries to return to.
Short of deleting the whole operating system, and overwriting it with another whole new operating system, what are the options?
Hacking the System
Can the Democratic Socialists hack the system
Q: ‘What is the most important thing in the world?’ [Maori Proverb]
Democracy Now! 19.5K views
Will Zohran Mamdani Be “Mayor for the Masses?” Democratic Socialists Have High Hopes for New Admin
Democracy Now! Jan 1, 2026
Zohran Mamdani swept into City Hall with bold promises to fix New York’s affordability crisis. But as he prepares to govern America’s biggest city, he faces budget gaps, political resistance, and high-stakes choices that will test his movement….
…..we sit down with NYC-DSA’s co-chair Grace Mausser to discuss the goals of the incoming administration, and the next steps for the volunteer-powered campaign apparatus that helped propel Mamdani to City Hall.
“Just getting a mayor into office, while impressive and very exciting, is not enough,” says Mausser. “The reason we rallied behind Zohran is because he is committed to building our project.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkG-YQq2F3E
@10:09 minutes:
“We don’t simply elect people and say, you know, good luck, don’t disappoint us. But we actively organize and strategize alongside them, so that we can create a strategy that is both ambitious but also realistic and targeted at the right types of of enemies, at the right targets, at the right pain points to actually move our agenda forward….
@4:27 minutes:
“You know, we’ve learned a lot looking at past examples, like how Obama’s volunteer army was disbanded after he became president, and we are working very hard to ensure that that doesn’t happen this time. I think Zohran coming out of a mass movement like the Democratic Socialists of America is an auspicious start to that.
Mamdani came to office mobilizing, like I said, tens of thousands of people. That was a very intentional strategy and those volunteers were not just canvasers but they were in many respects strategists running important aspects of the campaign.
That’s how you scale to knock over 2 million doors.
We’re going to, as the DSA, as the Mamdani administration, as the broad coalition of groups and individuals that he’s been able to knit together with his affordability platform, – we’re going to bring that same mentality into governance.
It’s really important that Mamdani comes out of these movements, we know he believes in these types of organizing tactics and that he’s going to continue with with that mentality as mayor. And of course DSA, the outside groups that helped elect him are continuing with these tacticsl. We know just getting a mayor into office, while impressive and very exciting is not enough. We have to continue to keep pressure on establishment Democrats, on establishment politicians, to do things like taxing the rich to fund child care.
Because we know that’s not going to happen without continuous outside agitation and outside pressure, and we are already working to do that…..
A: He tangata, he Tangata, he Tangata
Capitalism is an operating system running society, not the only one possible, but the only one currently running.
An operating system for society can be compared to any complex integrated networked operating system, like the operating system running computers for instance
According to Wikipedia some of the comon features of an operating system are;
Process management
Memory management
File system
Hardware drivers
Networking
Security
Input/output
You can make a similar list for society
Process management – government
Memory management – “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” George Orwell ie. propaganda
File system – libraries/Museums/government archives/Data Centres/retrieval systems, schools, universities
Device drivers – factories/farms/warehouses/distribution systems/shopping centres/retail outlets
Networking – media/social media/telecoms/internet/high level diplomacy/trade deals
Security – military/police/courts/prisons/Secret Service/MIC
Input/output – Resources and labour/Goods and services
The current operating system for all these things is Capitalism 2.0
Democracy is like a virus in the system, capitalism 1.0 originally operated without it, and in many places and instances still does.
Autocracy/dictatorship is the default, which it continualy tries to return to.
Short of deleting the whole operating system, and overwriting it with another whole new operating system, what are the options?
Hacking the System
Can the Democratic Socialists hack the system
Q: What is the most important thing in the world
Democracy Now! 19.5K views
Will Zohran Mamdani Be “Mayor for the Masses?” Democratic Socialists Have High Hopes for New Admin
Democracy Now! Jan 1, 2026
Zohran Mamdani swept into City Hall with bold promises to fix New York’s affordability crisis. But as he prepares to govern America’s biggest city, he faces budget gaps, political resistance, and high-stakes choices that will test his movement….
…..we sit down with NYC-DSA’s co-chair Grace Mausser to discuss the goals of the incoming administration, and the next steps for the volunteer-powered campaign apparatus that helped propel Mamdani to City Hall.
“Just getting a mayor into office, while impressive and very exciting, is not enough,” says Mausser. “The reason we rallied behind Zohran is because he is committed to building our project.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkG-YQq2F3E
@10:09 minutes:
“We don’t simply elect people and say, you know, good luck, don’t disappoint us. But we actively organize and strategize alongside them, so that we can create a strategy that is both ambitious but also realistic and targeted at the right types of of enemies, at the right targets, at the right pain points to actually move our agenda forward….
@4:27 minutes:
“You know, we’ve learned a lot looking at past examples, like how Obama’s volunteer army was disbanded after he became president, and we are working very hard to ensure that that doesn’t happen this time. I think Zohran coming out of a mass movement like the Democratic Socialists of America is an auspicious start to that.
Mamdani came to office mobilizing, like I said, tens of thousands of people. That was a very intentional strategy and those volunteers were not just canvasers but they were in many respects strategists running important aspects of the campaign.
That’s how you scale to knock over 2 million doors.
We’re going to, as the DSA, as the Mamdani administration, as the broad coalition of groups and individuals that he’s been able to knit together with his affordability platform, – we’re going to bring that same mentality into governance.
It’s really important that Mamdani comes out of these movements, we know he believes in these types of organizing tactics and that he’s going to continue with with that mentality as mayor. And of course DSA, the outside groups that helped elect him are continuing with these tacticsl. We know just getting a mayor into office, while impressive and very exciting is not enough. We have to continue to keep pressure on establishment Democrats, on establishment politicians, to do things like taxing the rich to fund child care.
Because we know that’s not going to happen without continuous outside agitation and outside pressure, and we are already working to do that…..
A: He tangata, he Tangata, he Tangata