Following the election and inauguration of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City, there has been debate regarding whether the ideology of individualism or collectivism is superior. Mamdani and his supporters praise collectivism, while their critics vehemently argue that history shows this is a siren song that must be ignored at all costs. President of Davidson College Libertarians Gabriel Russ-Nachamie argued in “The Coldness of Collectivism” that collectivism has failed spectacularly, from the Soviet experiment to Maoist China. These catastrophes reflect the failures of command economies, but ought not be used to evaluate all collectivist policies. Russ-Nachamie is essentially equating the efficacy of any policy that might benefit the collective over an individual to that of planned economies. This is simply a false equivocation, as the relevant question is not whether to subscribe to pure collectivism or individualism, but rather how democratic governments ought to address market failures without distorting price signals and individual liberties. I will concede that I believe some of Zohran’s platform does overstep with regard to price controls, such as the proposed rent freeze. However, that does not mean his stance towards practical collectivism should be tossed aside without a second thought.
The central problem of command economies is information. Russ-Nachamie eloquently describes failures resulting from such problems in a command economy. His example regarding the complexity of information required for something as seemingly simple as the production of a pencil makes this idea clear. This process relies heavily on information constantly updated by price levels in a responsive market based on the incentives afforded to actors in the economy. This information is lost whenever binding price controls are imposed, causing shortages and surpluses that would otherwise be avoided. For Zohran’s rent freeze policy, this is where I find the most issue, as putting a binding price control creates inefficiencies and misallocations, which likely outweigh any benefits to the well-being of a few individuals who stand to gain from the locked prices. This is why price controls should be used very sparingly when making policy, and their costs must be truly weighed against a tangible gain. An example of a socially beneficial price control is a minimum wage. Minimum wage is effectively a price floor on labor, preventing firms from exploiting individuals who lack bargaining power and cannot afford to refuse a job offer with a suboptimal wage. This is a prime example of how sparing, but intelligent, use of a collectivist price control can be beneficial to society and broadly endorsed.
This is where a distinction must be made. There is a stark difference between command economies, such as those of the 20th-century authoritarian regimes, and mixed economies, such as those of most modern democracies. The types of economies that Russ-Nachamie references throughout his article are all complete command economies. These systems had broadly applied price controls and central planning, whereas in typical market-based economies, such as in the U.S. and by extension New York, there are few of these price controls. Furthermore, the implementation of these policies is generally tactful and thought-out. Being compared to the image that Zohran envisions for New York City would likely be taken as an insult by the radicals who built previous communist regimes.
Now, even if I were to concede that all price controls are always inadvisable, collectivist policy is a broad umbrella encompassing any policy intended to primarily benefit broader society. Under this definition, there are still many “collectivist” policies within Zohran’s platform that would be beneficial without price controls. This includes free public bus fares, the construction of affordable housing, the fight against corporate exploitation, higher tax rates on the wealthy, and no-cost childcare. Each of these policies aims to address a market externality that a laissez-faire system would turn into an inefficiency. Zohran’s approach to addressing externalities is built on creating new incentive structures through reformed regulation as well as direct financial carrots and sticks.
There are many examples of how collectivist policy has benefited Americans for decades, if not centuries. Public education is a collectively paid-for service that benefits all Americans. Even if you yourself never attended a public school, you still benefit from the positive externalities associated with having an educated public providing services to your community. Public infrastructure is the result of collectivist policy, paying for highways that connect our cities and allow for the transportation of not only goods but also people at far lower cost, benefiting everyone. Antitrust policies have benefited all consumers since they were first implemented under Theodore Roosevelt, preventing the exploitation of the public through monopoly pricing and price setting behavior by large cartels.
Some might be concerned that this could lead to a “slippery slope”; however, I would argue that is extremely unlikely, considering we are talking about a handful of policies directed towards specific problems in one city in one state in a very divided country. The likelihood that any of these policies are implemented at a country wide scale is essentially negligible. The only way this becomes a widespread policy stance is if there is at least some degree of success in this particular iteration of collectivist policy.
If Mamdani’s policies fail, they should be rejected for their lack of merit. If they succeed in addressing externalities without damaging individual liberties and market efficiencies, they should be accepted and adopted elsewhere. Our real quarrels should not lie with collectivism itself, but with the refusal to delineate between authoritarian command economies and pragmatic democratic governance. Sound policy is not an ideological holy war, but rather the balancing of incentives, information, and human welfare. Perhaps with such an attitude, we can warm any coldness from collectivism, but also quell the inferno of individualism.