Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has Mahmood Mamdani ever described himself as a communist?
Executive Summary
Mahmood Mamdani has not described himself as a communist in the available public record; instead, contemporary reporting and his body of work show him positioned as a scholar of colonialism, nationalism and political violence with views aligned to democratic socialism rather than communism. Recent media rebuttals of claims that label him “communist” emphasize that such labels are being used as political slurs in electoral contexts and point to Mamdani’s own writings and venues—such as essays in left‑wing journals—as evidence of a critical, anti‑colonial intellectual stance, not an endorsement of centralized communist economic systems [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the “communist” label surfaced and who is pushing it
Reports and political commentaries from 2024–2025 show that the “communist” label has circulated largely in the context of US local politics as a rhetorical weapon, not as a biographical fact about Mahmood Mamdani. Coverage tying Mamdani to communism often conflates him with other figures—most notably his son in New York politics—or distills his critiques of imperialism and capitalism into a simple ideological tag. Independent profiles of Mamdani’s scholarship make clear that his major interventions concern the legacy of colonialism, nationalism, and the politics of violence, without asserting allegiance to communist economic programs; this nuance is missing where the label is deployed as a smear [1] [4] [5].
2. What Mamdani himself has written and where he publishes
Mamdani’s academic record and publication history show a consistent engagement with left‑of‑center forums and journals such as the New Left Review, but not explicit self‑identification as a communist. His published work interrogates state power, colonial legacies and political identities rather than advocating for the abolition of private property or a centrally planned economy—core tenets of classic communism. The distinction between appearing in Marxist‑oriented journals and declaring oneself a communist is important: scholarly venues reflect intellectual conversation, not necessarily party affiliation, and Mamdani’s texts emphasize analysis over programmatic political prescriptions [2] [6].
3. Recent media fact‑checks and rebuttals that matter
A November 2025 opinion piece explicitly pushes back against labeling Mamdani a communist, noting that he identifies as a democratic socialist and supports social policies common in many European democracies, not communist economic restructuring; the article argues that calling such policies “communist” is misleading and politically motivated. Parallel reporting in mid‑2025 focused on Mamdani’s public statements and found no instance of him self‑describing as a communist, instead documenting a scholar critical of state violence and colonial forms of domination [3] [7].
4. Where confusion and legitimate ambiguity come from
Confusion arises because Mamdani’s critiques of imperialism and capitalism, and occasional engagement with Marxist theory in academic contexts, can be mobilized by opponents as evidence of communism. Quotations of Marx by other family members or by campaign contexts have amplified the mislabel, and political opponents have used shorthand to equate anti‑neoliberal policies with communism. Careful reading of Mamdani’s interviews and essays shows an emphasis on democratic transformation and institutional reform rather than advocacy for totalizing communist models of economic organization [5] [1].
5. Bottom line: what the evidence supports and how to interpret it
The evidence supports a clear conclusion: Mahmood Mamdani has not publicly described himself as a communist; his public record aligns with democratic socialism and academic critique of colonialism and the state. Labels in political discourse have been applied imprecisely and sometimes in bad faith, which is why contemporary fact‑checks and profile pieces stress the difference between socialist critique and communist ideology. Readers should treat claims that he self‑identified as a communist as unsupported by the cited interviews, essays and recent reporting [7] [3] [4].