# The Ideological Blindness of West Bengali Immigrants
The lack of self-reflection among certain immigrant communities reveals itself most starkly in their political behavior after relocating to different economic systems. This phenomenon reaches its most absurd expression among West Bengali immigrants, who continue supporting left-wing parties even after experiencing the benefits of capitalist regimes firsthand.
West Bengalis represent a particularly egregious case study in ideological persistence. They have lived at the epicenter of socialist failure, witnessed its consequences daily, yet maintain unwavering commitment to the very policies that created their original circumstances. This represents ideology triumphing over lived experience in the most dramatic fashion possible.
The recent revolution in Bangladesh provided a perfect illustration of this mindset. A West Bengali commentator predictably attributed all of Bangladesh's problems to big business, demonstrating the reflexive scapegoating that characterizes this worldview. More tellingly, there was complete absence of self-reflection regarding a fundamental economic reality: Bangladesh has become richer than West Bengal despite starting from a significantly disadvantaged position.
Consider the comparative trajectories. Bangladesh began with weaker institutions, endured war, famine, decades of political instability, and religious violence—yet still managed to surpass West Bengal economically. This outcome should prompt serious reconsideration of the policy frameworks that produced such divergent results.
Even the commentator's crisis analysis revealed profound analytical confusion. Bangladesh's economic difficulties were concentrated in state-owned banks and the electricity sector, which operates as a government monopoly. Natural gas production had declined due to chronic underinvestment by the state-owned gas development company. The pattern is unmistakable: government monopolies failing to deliver basic services and economic growth.
Yet socialist believers maintain that the failure of government-owned enterprises somehow results from capitalist conspiracy. This represents a level of cognitive dissonance that defies rational explanation. When state monopolies fail, the fault lies not with the monopolistic structure or government management, but with private actors who have been systematically excluded from these sectors.
This ideological blindness prevents any meaningful learning from comparative economic performance. It ensures that the same failed policies will be advocated regardless of mounting evidence of their inadequacy, creating a feedback loop where ideology becomes increasingly detached from observable reality.
What exactly is an indigenous Indian? Who were the original peoples before modern day Indians came? And how does this perspective differ from other diaspora Indians in America?
I have been unsure why more people arent covering this race. The DSA has had a lot of success with getting people elected, and they have the progressive values that the right claims to mostly hate. It would be nice to see more coverage!
I also hadnt realized how liberal NYC was since actually living in the city you wouldnt know it. But I think Dems are obsessed with shoring up power and then refusing to govern.
So when I say indigenous Indians, I mean more ideologically.
There's a vast swathe of elites who have been Western educated and are white in everything but their skin. They decry native institutions and traditions in favour of Western traditions and customs.
They have managed to infiltrate their perspective into many educational institutions that leads to this prevailing mindset in the population. This perspective differs from other Indian diaspora in the US because most of the Indians who come here have been educated in Western traditions and customs and look at Indian traditions with a Western lens without considering an indigenous Indic perspective.
I think this race has just now started to get more coverage.
> With rent control, only those who manage to land an apartment end up benefiting.
Nihilistically, I think this is the point. People who aren’t already renting aren’t eligible to vote in NYC, unless they own, at which point the disincentive for new development will further drive up property values.
I thought substack was a nice SM bubble for well-informed people but wow this might be the worst thing I've ever read. 💗 To compare Mamdani with Cuomo is to compare the sweet and oppressed Palestinians with heartless occupying Israelis, but im sure you're not informed enough to understand why.
Will never understand someone claiming to put the "Indigenous" perspective out there that somehow doesn't care about the rights of Indigenous populations worldwide and the working class of NYC.
Your first point is quite misleading; certainly the Palestinian issue is one felt strongly by the city, on both sides and well-documented as well. In staying away from the "facts" of it, you dismiss the humanitarian grounds upon which half the people I have discussed with are voting for Mamdani. It doesn't take much research to recognise and be against the various humanitarian crises raised by the asymmetric and untargeted persecution of the Palestinians by the Israelis: one state fulfills all the criteria of a populist invader-led operation of conquering land and murdering Indigenous populations as a religious conquest; I cannot even imagine what the response would be if such a banner was raised by the people on the other side (or actually, maybe I can! re: The War on Terror). As somewhat learned and somewhat nice people, in somewhat privileged positions, the least we can do is be aware of the traumas of our communities, the world is not as uni or bi polar that the relevant crises may only be one or two at a time. We raise our voices and fight for justice of all, regardless of if its "our fight" or not, whether if its Rus-Ukr, Israel-Palestine, Trump-the real americans, we should support in at least informing ourselves and bringing the facts to light.
Let's then simply stick to the arguments raised re: his fiscal big ideas. Economics, or at least the rudimentary price demand laws you discuss in your article, have situation-specific impacts that are quite subjective, as someone who works in REIT, I can attest to the somewhat non-causal relationship between market pricing, market demand etc.
You are right, rent-controlled units will be allocated and benefit only those that acquire them, but this still solves the problem albeit for a smaller number of people. The ultimate solution is more multi-res building - but not as the traditional neo lib dems would do it - re: Toronto's current housing crises; we built more than enough units but as always these builds (the design, unit styles, space, level of furnishings and installations etc) were controlled by the developers. The consequence is simple, the city has tons of empty housing with even more coming next year, but almost all are vacant, unrented and unsold, as the consumers cannot afford even the breakeven pricing set by these developers. THIS leads to the underinvestment, developments in different cities, mistrust with the government, etc.
Re: grocery stores being owned by the city, I can if nothing else envision more accountable management, significantly better working conditions, and better service provided to the shoppers, compared to the regular walmart experience. You talk about competitiveness making these corporations operate at the least profitable level anyways, here I'd like to introduce the term "Oligopoly", which is the real market structure of practically every consumer facing industry in the States, from grocery, health-care, insurance, banking, etc, and in this structure all companies (the 4 groups that own them) decide what price level they wish to set, a new example of this might be the monetization of AI, once Open AI set their pricing options, none of the big players "undercut" this, all followed suit.
Re: free childcare, and his taxation policies, I can and am happy to discuss them in detail but for the sake of time (and my fingers!), where I hope my argument takes you is that these are ambitious plans, they are working ideas and have therefore undecided conclusions. But should we not support these, as Cuomo's platform, while not undecided, is one that reeks of his history of sexual misconduct (i believe this wasn't mentioned in your writing), of the old generation, of maintaining the status quo, and ultimately of doing the DJT playbook to raise his banners in 2028.
If we support the working class, then why not give the subway-riding, forward thinking, working class man a chance.
I'm not too familiar with the market dynamics of Toronto, so won't comment on that.
My basic grouse with this is this: How is the city going to ensure that it will build cheaper than developers? You could argue that the city doesn't need to turn a profit, but then this simply means that taxpayers are footing the bill. And without clear price signals, how does the city know where to build? If builders are choosing to have vacant inventory, then wouldn't it be better for the city to figure out why it is vacant? If it is going to be making a loss anyway, then why not subsidize low-income renters rather than developing buildings themselves? I have no grouse with spending money for poor folks.
About grocery stores, if there's an oligopoly, then resources would be better spent in fighting the anti-competitiveness nature of these stores rather than run stores at a loss. That money should be spent there. It would achieve at a fraction of the cost.
# The Ideological Blindness of West Bengali Immigrants
The lack of self-reflection among certain immigrant communities reveals itself most starkly in their political behavior after relocating to different economic systems. This phenomenon reaches its most absurd expression among West Bengali immigrants, who continue supporting left-wing parties even after experiencing the benefits of capitalist regimes firsthand.
West Bengalis represent a particularly egregious case study in ideological persistence. They have lived at the epicenter of socialist failure, witnessed its consequences daily, yet maintain unwavering commitment to the very policies that created their original circumstances. This represents ideology triumphing over lived experience in the most dramatic fashion possible.
The recent revolution in Bangladesh provided a perfect illustration of this mindset. A West Bengali commentator predictably attributed all of Bangladesh's problems to big business, demonstrating the reflexive scapegoating that characterizes this worldview. More tellingly, there was complete absence of self-reflection regarding a fundamental economic reality: Bangladesh has become richer than West Bengal despite starting from a significantly disadvantaged position.
Consider the comparative trajectories. Bangladesh began with weaker institutions, endured war, famine, decades of political instability, and religious violence—yet still managed to surpass West Bengal economically. This outcome should prompt serious reconsideration of the policy frameworks that produced such divergent results.
Even the commentator's crisis analysis revealed profound analytical confusion. Bangladesh's economic difficulties were concentrated in state-owned banks and the electricity sector, which operates as a government monopoly. Natural gas production had declined due to chronic underinvestment by the state-owned gas development company. The pattern is unmistakable: government monopolies failing to deliver basic services and economic growth.
Yet socialist believers maintain that the failure of government-owned enterprises somehow results from capitalist conspiracy. This represents a level of cognitive dissonance that defies rational explanation. When state monopolies fail, the fault lies not with the monopolistic structure or government management, but with private actors who have been systematically excluded from these sectors.
This ideological blindness prevents any meaningful learning from comparative economic performance. It ensures that the same failed policies will be advocated regardless of mounting evidence of their inadequacy, creating a feedback loop where ideology becomes increasingly detached from observable reality.
What exactly is an indigenous Indian? Who were the original peoples before modern day Indians came? And how does this perspective differ from other diaspora Indians in America?
I have been unsure why more people arent covering this race. The DSA has had a lot of success with getting people elected, and they have the progressive values that the right claims to mostly hate. It would be nice to see more coverage!
I also hadnt realized how liberal NYC was since actually living in the city you wouldnt know it. But I think Dems are obsessed with shoring up power and then refusing to govern.
So when I say indigenous Indians, I mean more ideologically.
There's a vast swathe of elites who have been Western educated and are white in everything but their skin. They decry native institutions and traditions in favour of Western traditions and customs.
They have managed to infiltrate their perspective into many educational institutions that leads to this prevailing mindset in the population. This perspective differs from other Indian diaspora in the US because most of the Indians who come here have been educated in Western traditions and customs and look at Indian traditions with a Western lens without considering an indigenous Indic perspective.
I think this race has just now started to get more coverage.
> With rent control, only those who manage to land an apartment end up benefiting.
Nihilistically, I think this is the point. People who aren’t already renting aren’t eligible to vote in NYC, unless they own, at which point the disincentive for new development will further drive up property values.
Another heavily informative piece, thank you
Glad you liked it, Shambhavi! Thanks a lot :)
I thought substack was a nice SM bubble for well-informed people but wow this might be the worst thing I've ever read. 💗 To compare Mamdani with Cuomo is to compare the sweet and oppressed Palestinians with heartless occupying Israelis, but im sure you're not informed enough to understand why.
Will never understand someone claiming to put the "Indigenous" perspective out there that somehow doesn't care about the rights of Indigenous populations worldwide and the working class of NYC.
As I said, I don't know much about the Palestinian cause and that's why I refrain from commenting on it.
I do care about the working class. And wherever policies that Zohran suggests have been tried, it has resulted in capital flight and unemployment.
Can you point out specific claims of mine that you disagree with? I'd be able to defend my argument much better.
Your first point is quite misleading; certainly the Palestinian issue is one felt strongly by the city, on both sides and well-documented as well. In staying away from the "facts" of it, you dismiss the humanitarian grounds upon which half the people I have discussed with are voting for Mamdani. It doesn't take much research to recognise and be against the various humanitarian crises raised by the asymmetric and untargeted persecution of the Palestinians by the Israelis: one state fulfills all the criteria of a populist invader-led operation of conquering land and murdering Indigenous populations as a religious conquest; I cannot even imagine what the response would be if such a banner was raised by the people on the other side (or actually, maybe I can! re: The War on Terror). As somewhat learned and somewhat nice people, in somewhat privileged positions, the least we can do is be aware of the traumas of our communities, the world is not as uni or bi polar that the relevant crises may only be one or two at a time. We raise our voices and fight for justice of all, regardless of if its "our fight" or not, whether if its Rus-Ukr, Israel-Palestine, Trump-the real americans, we should support in at least informing ourselves and bringing the facts to light.
Let's then simply stick to the arguments raised re: his fiscal big ideas. Economics, or at least the rudimentary price demand laws you discuss in your article, have situation-specific impacts that are quite subjective, as someone who works in REIT, I can attest to the somewhat non-causal relationship between market pricing, market demand etc.
You are right, rent-controlled units will be allocated and benefit only those that acquire them, but this still solves the problem albeit for a smaller number of people. The ultimate solution is more multi-res building - but not as the traditional neo lib dems would do it - re: Toronto's current housing crises; we built more than enough units but as always these builds (the design, unit styles, space, level of furnishings and installations etc) were controlled by the developers. The consequence is simple, the city has tons of empty housing with even more coming next year, but almost all are vacant, unrented and unsold, as the consumers cannot afford even the breakeven pricing set by these developers. THIS leads to the underinvestment, developments in different cities, mistrust with the government, etc.
Re: grocery stores being owned by the city, I can if nothing else envision more accountable management, significantly better working conditions, and better service provided to the shoppers, compared to the regular walmart experience. You talk about competitiveness making these corporations operate at the least profitable level anyways, here I'd like to introduce the term "Oligopoly", which is the real market structure of practically every consumer facing industry in the States, from grocery, health-care, insurance, banking, etc, and in this structure all companies (the 4 groups that own them) decide what price level they wish to set, a new example of this might be the monetization of AI, once Open AI set their pricing options, none of the big players "undercut" this, all followed suit.
Re: free childcare, and his taxation policies, I can and am happy to discuss them in detail but for the sake of time (and my fingers!), where I hope my argument takes you is that these are ambitious plans, they are working ideas and have therefore undecided conclusions. But should we not support these, as Cuomo's platform, while not undecided, is one that reeks of his history of sexual misconduct (i believe this wasn't mentioned in your writing), of the old generation, of maintaining the status quo, and ultimately of doing the DJT playbook to raise his banners in 2028.
If we support the working class, then why not give the subway-riding, forward thinking, working class man a chance.
I'm not too familiar with the market dynamics of Toronto, so won't comment on that.
My basic grouse with this is this: How is the city going to ensure that it will build cheaper than developers? You could argue that the city doesn't need to turn a profit, but then this simply means that taxpayers are footing the bill. And without clear price signals, how does the city know where to build? If builders are choosing to have vacant inventory, then wouldn't it be better for the city to figure out why it is vacant? If it is going to be making a loss anyway, then why not subsidize low-income renters rather than developing buildings themselves? I have no grouse with spending money for poor folks.
About grocery stores, if there's an oligopoly, then resources would be better spent in fighting the anti-competitiveness nature of these stores rather than run stores at a loss. That money should be spent there. It would achieve at a fraction of the cost.