Radicalization doesn’t begin in a vacuum. It’s stoked when people are oppressed and degraded by a system they can observe but feel they gain nothing from. When the perceived balance of give and take between the dominant and working class is knocked askew, what follows is people left in unrest making any movement that offers its people agency, belonging, security, and hope—virtues rarely afforded by a traditional capitalist structure, attractive, then popular. John Steinbeck’s In Dubious Battle contextualizes the nature of this phenomenon, clearly allowing us to understand modern political movements, like mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s decisive defeat of Andrew Cuomo and the political establishment he is seen to represent.
John Steinbeck’s 1936 novel In Dubious Battle follows Jim Nolan, a man disillusioned with his circumstances who joins the local chapter of “the party,” assumed to be the Communist Party, or “reds,” as they are described throughout the book. Working under the mentorship of seasoned strike organizer Mac McLeod, Jim sets out for California’s Togas Valley to help exploited orchard workers protest. Mac and Jim work to transform the laborers’ erratic anger into an organized machine of institutional rebellion. Throughout this process, we see the gradual radicalization of Jim, as his deep commitment to the cause pushes him close to fanaticism.
The story comes to a tragic end when Jim is killed in conflict. Ultimately, the strike itself is unsuccessful, but Steinbeck presents a kind of success more enduring than a material one. The workers are left with a sense of collective identity and purpose, proving that their struggle is part of a broader movement for justice. The battle is not won, but it’s not won over either.
Jim’s transformation was as follows: he observed his father get crushed by the system, he joined “the party” drawn by the possibility of decency being allowed to all, he overcame the powerlessness of being alone in unrest, and he finally found meaning in the power of the collective.
Similarly, Mamdani’s process of enrolling so many New Yorkers onto his socialist platform began with identifying the struggles of the individual. Then, he pitched a policy that described a new, better possibility, and finally he framed his movement as one defined and allowed by solidarity, providing the same sense of collective identity Jim used to enroll and inspire the strikers.
Supporters see Mamdani as representative of a new order, replacing our long-corrupted oligarchy with socialist reforms. However powerful his desires for the city are, it’s possible—even likely—that reform won’t come about any time soon. Immediately threatening his policies are the bureaucratic red lines that could prevent him from raising the 10 billion dollars he needs to finance these changes, and farther removed, but still cause for skepticism, is the historical unsustainability of a socialist model.
Regardless of the actualization of his ideas, Mamdani’s movement is and will continue to be reminiscent of the more enduring kind of progress seen in the novel. In Dubious Battle describes the power of collectivism, the same collectivism that Mamdani’s campaign was built on. For many young voters, Mamdani’s campaign represents a hope thought to be long obscured by the repressive political establishment. The new electorate has largely seen nothing but despair from politics. We’ve seen a devolution in quality of discourse, divisive use of political footballs, and even attempts at overthrowing our democracy itself, but for the first time in recent memory, a purely grassroots, by-the-people, for-the-people campaign overtook the billionaire-funded establishment Democrat.
And while unlikely to mark a complete shift in power structures, this election is a step in the direction of collectivism. From Mamdani’s victory speech: “Let tonight be the final time I utter his name, as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few.” And drawn from Mac McLeod’s reflection at the end of the strike: “Let this be the last night we bow to those who trade our hope for their gain, as we reclaim a future that belongs to all of us.”
In both cases, victory is defined not by immediate success, but rather by an awakening of collective purpose itself. It becomes clear that when people are denied justice and dignity, they will inevitably resist, and the deeper the oppression, the stronger and more impassioned the response will be. In Dubious Battle and this past election serve as powerful reminders that the collective once held the power to disrupt and fight when necessary, and that such power, when organized around solidarity and shared purpose, can shape and inspire lasting social change.
