Imagine this: at the supermarket, a package labeled “ham” contains slices of turkey. No pork, no curing process, no tradition—just a word emptied of its essence. What happens when the signifier—that label we use—becomes utterly detached from the signified—what it truly represents? This is no culinary anecdote. It’s a metaphor for how the system perverts language, ideas, and even ideologies until reality unravels, leaving behind ideological wrappers that confuse more than they illuminate.
Socialist or the Friendly Face of the Establishment?
Take New York’s mayor as an example. His agenda includes progressive proposals: affordable housing, free public transport… Yet critics brand him a “communist” despite his condemnation of governments like Cuba’s, Venezuela’s, or Nicaragua’s, while allies on the global left hail him as a “socialist.” Herein lies the paradox: Though Mamdani may once have identified as a socialist, he belongs to the Democratic Party. His campaign was funded by billionaires like Alex Soros, and his team is staffed by NGO technocrats specializing in “social solutions.” Is this socialism? Or is it the sleight of hand of a system that recycles language to disguise old structures?
The problem isn’t Mamdani’s ambition—it’s the analytical laziness that accepts labels without questioning their substance. If a politician backed by financial capital and tied to a privately donor-dependent campaign system brands himself a “socialist,” what remains of socialism’s original meaning? User note: Anything cooked over fire with rice isn’t paella. Neither is a social program constrained by capitalism’s margins, no matter how well-intentioned it seems.
The Trap of Progressive Narratives and the Reactionary Cycle
This distortion isn’t innocent. When we celebrate figures who, in practice, manage the status quo as “left-wing victories,” we set the stage for collective failure. If Mamdani—or any leader—cannot implement structural reforms (because New York is the mecca of real estate speculation, or because his funding relies on the very powers he criticizes), public disillusionment will inevitably follow. And when it does—as we saw with Obama, “the most militaristic president in recent history,” or Biden, whose “progressivism” dissolves under the weight of militarism—the dominant narrative will be: “Socialism doesn’t work. They’re all the same.”
This is the reactionary cycle: first, the illusion of change “from within”; then, inevitable failure; and finally, the victory of conservatives, fueled by disenchantment. Between Málaga and Malagón, Mamdani was the best option. But the best option isn’t the solution—it’s a holding pattern until the pendulum swings back to the right.
Socialist by Decree or by Praxis?
Here lies the core argument: No one is socialist by self-declaration, media branding, or wearing a CCCP hoodie. Calling oneself an ideologue depends not on allies, detractors, or even personal claims. Socialism is proven through material programs: nationalizations, radical wealth redistribution, ruptures with extractive logics—and their implementation. Where is this program in Mamdani? On his campaign website, transition2025.com, concrete proposals are scarce, replaced by bios of NGO-trained staffers. And here’s another problem: NGOs, however noble their causes, are bandages on a system requiring surgery. They slow the bleeding but never cure the disease.
The left, eager to celebrate every media victory, falls into a dangerous trap: confusing rhetoric with revolution. By accepting that a Soros-funded U.S. Democrat can be called a “socialist,” we don’t just distort language—we weaken the struggle. When the system absorbs our terms and empties them of meaning, it strips us of tools to imagine real alternatives.
Shattering the Mirror of Empty Signifiers
Turkey “ham” isn’t ham. Obama wasn’t a pacifist. Biden isn’t a social democrat. And Mamdani isn’t a socialist. But behind these confusions lies something graver: a system that twists language to manipulate reality and tame rebellion. As long as we allow billionaires to fund “progressive” campaigns or NGOs to replace robust states—among countless other examples—we feed the machine that turns hope into cynicism.
The lesson is clear: Let’s not cheat ourselves. The left must reclaim analytical rigor—starting by calling things by their name—and reject narratives that sound good but hide uncomfortable truths. After all, liberals will never be communists, nor can a communist remain one in a liberal democracy if, the day after taking office, they fail to dismantle the system’s foundations.
Meanwhile, let’s keep asking: What lies behind the labels we consume? Because in the end, when ham ceases to be ham, revolution ceases to be revolution