Conservatives scream socialism over grocery stores while completely ignoring 17 states with government booze monopolies

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York City, has drawn national attention for his policy proposals. While many debates around his candidacy have focused on major issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a surprising amount of criticism has centered on his grocery store plan.

Conservative and libertarian voices have attacked Mamdani’s grocery store proposal with strong language, similar to the political rhetoric we’ve seen in recent discussions about state-funded media initiatives. John Catsimatidis, who owns the Gristedes and D’Agostino’s grocery chains, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Mamdani’s policies amount to “radical socialism.” He warned they “would collapse our food supply, kill private industry, and drag us down a path toward the bread lines of the old Soviet Union.”

Megan McArdle made similar points in The Washington Post, writing that conservatives scream socialism over grocery stores while completely ignoring 17 states with government booze monopolies. She said Mamdani “wants to socialize the means of consumption” and compared his plan to communist policies.

What Mamdani actually wants to do with grocery stores

The actual proposal is much smaller than the harsh criticism suggests. Mamdani does not want to take over any existing private grocery stores. Instead, he wants to open five new city-owned grocery stores, one in each of New York City’s five boroughs. These stores would serve areas that have few private grocery options and where prices tend to be very high.

The plan would not touch any privately owned supermarkets or bodegas in the city. The five public stores would compete alongside existing private stores, not replace them. This would give residents more shopping choices in areas that currently have limited options.

Critics seem to ignore that government-owned stores already exist across the United States without causing major problems. The rise and fall of platforms shows how social media landscapes can change dramatically, yet we adapt to new market realities. There are 17 states that run public monopolies on liquor stores, including New Hampshire, whose state motto is “Live Free or Die.” New Hampshire operates 80 state-owned liquor stores with no private competitors allowed.

The New Hampshire liquor stores are actually popular and successful. People from other states often drive there just to buy cheap alcohol. The state keeps this policy because it brings in needed revenue without raising taxes. NPR reported that some people even buy hundreds of bottles to resell in other states where prices are higher.

The reaction to Mamdani’s proposal contains a major contradiction. Critics claim that government-run grocery stores would be so badly managed that shelves would be empty, like in the old Soviet Union. But they also warn that these stores would be so successful that they would put private competitors out of business. Both things cannot be true at the same time.

If public grocery stores would really be inefficient with empty shelves, customers would simply shop at private stores instead. The five proposed stores would have no special advantages over existing private competitors. They would succeed or fail based on whether they can provide good service and fair prices to customers in underserved areas.