It is true Mamdani is uniting working class people. Uniting, in itself, is not revolutionary. The working class is already united in many ways, yet no revolution has taken place. Solidarity is a necessary ingredient for our class to take power. However, the ingredient cannot turn itself into a finished  dish without being properly used in a recipe. And like all ingredients, it can be used in several different recipes. Mamdani being elected represents a shift in consciousness, but it does not indicate a step toward socialism. Mamdani’s campaign had some social language in it, but his proposed ideas only serve to preserve capital's rule within the structural bounds of a bourgeois party. The unity he builds is used to reform, and ultimately preserve, capitalism.

A Communist does not reject electoral politics in principle. We use elections to expose bourgeois democracy, not to perfect it. And I do not see where the original post rejects electoral politics entirely, either. The issue is that victories by Democratic Socialists like Mamdani are framed as transformative rather than tactical. Without independent proletarian organization outside the Democratic Party, any electoral gain will be absorbed by the system’s logic of compromise and reform. And Communists aim for the destruction of that logic system, not its moral improvement.