Is the World Moving Toward Socialism and Away From Capitalism

[rgray222]

The evidence is beginning to accumulate that the world is experiencing a resurgence of socialist ideas, particularly among the younger demographic, people aged 18-45 years old. Depending on which poll you are reading Socialism gets favorable rating 49% NYT, 53% Cato Institute and 58% from the Sienna Poll. In the United States and Europe, figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have brought democratic socialist policies into the mainstream. By the end of 2025, there were 250 Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members holding elected public office across 40 states. This shift does not necessarily indicate a global transition to state socialism or the collapse of capitalism; it does signal that change is arriving.

I find that when you press people about their support for socialism, you get something very different. They describe a capitalist framework with a very wide safety net. They do not describe the abolition of private property or the loss of market systems.

Figuring out exactly what people want will help shape our economic futures. Is Socialism in our future?

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The evidence is beginning to accumulate that the world is experiencing a resurgence of socialist ideas, particularly among the younger demographic, people aged 18-45 years old. Depending on which poll you are reading Socialism gets favorable rating 49% NYT, 53% Cato Institute and 58% from the Sienna Poll. In the United States and Europe, figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have brought democratic socialist policies into the mainstream. By the end of 2025, there were 250 Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members holding elected public office across 40 states. This shift does not necessarily indicate a global transition to state socialism or the collapse of capitalism; it does signal that change is arriving.

I find that when you press people about their support for socialism, you get something very different. They describe a capitalist framework with a very wide safety net. They do not describe the abolition of private property or the loss of market systems.

Figuring out exactly what people want will help shape our economic futures. Is Socialism in our future?

Ignorance and lack of logic, reason, and common sense is a destructive and deadly mental disorder, history has proven this time and time again.

[sdv]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The evidence is beginning to accumulate that the world is experiencing a resurgence of socialist ideas, particularly among the younger demographic, people aged 18-45 years old. Depending on which poll you are reading Socialism gets favorable rating 49% NYT, 53% Cato Institute and 58% from the Sienna Poll. In the United States and Europe, figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have brought democratic socialist policies into the mainstream. By the end of 2025, there were 250 Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members holding elected public office across 40 states. This shift does not necessarily indicate a global transition to state socialism or the collapse of capitalism; it does signal that change is arriving.

I find that when you press people about their support for socialism, you get something very different. They describe a capitalist framework with a very wide safety net. They do not describe the abolition of private property or the loss of market systems.

Figuring out exactly what people want will help shape our economic futures. Is Socialism in our future?

If you look at the success stories of China and Scandinavian countries, a mixed system works in eradicating absolute poverty and ensuring a better standard of living for all.

We should perhaps get away from the attachment of naming and rather focus on what we want to achieve in terms of basic standard of living? Each country creates its own system to suit its particular needs. China calls their system socialism with Chinese characteristics (but led by a political party/movement calling itself communism, so that may still be the ultimate goal, which actually can be seen as a noble vision if you can overcome the knee-jerk Western reaction to that word). Unfortunately, in countries like the US (and perhaps even my own), the rent-seeking wealthy class and self-enriching political class are in control. IMO the impetus to change comes from pain ... those in control will tinker to appease the exploited masses, trying to keep the rent-seeking apparatus intact, and make it appear like positive change. The alternative is perhaps revolution, which can be very destructive initially. China itself went through revolution that caused an immense amount of death and suffering, and it took a long time you get the revolution on a steady track to achieve the upliftment of all its people, as was the intention of the original revolution.

[Bill Ryan]

Do also see these relevant threads:

• The Capitalism Problem
• How Capitalism will Destroy the World

(My $0.02 worth: 'Socialism' may not be the polar opposite of 'Capitalism'. There may well be other systems that can work much more equitably than the current 'western' model, which entirely rewards greed, corruption, exploitation, endless growth which is impossible to sustain, and environmental destruction.)

[Ernie Nemeth]

Capitalism is anachronistic to this game of "Three Card Monte" that our current fiat system resembles.

Add to that the new class of business, the multinational corporation, considered by the courts as 'Uber" human with rights accorded as such, who have no affiliation for any country over another, despite what they may claim.

In such a clime it is no wonder people want a socialist style regime.

Socialism requires acquiescence of the individual to the will of the majority based on ever-changing principles, and overrides individual freedom. Socialism does not recognize fundamental rights except as defined by/for the purposes of the current paradigm. In socialist regimes rights are replaced by privileges - that can be taken away at the whim and whimsy of the state.

Once socialism creeps into a state the outcome is inevitably more socialist control. Socialist control comes in the form of regulation and license, thereby eliminating or severely curtailing innovation and enterprise. The tent of socialism is large, but it relies on standardization and identification. Privacy is the enemy of socialism, and it is the prime target. Once privacy concerns are integrated free speech can be curtailed and an official narrative can be established, taught, enforced, and normalized. (We are here)

Then a true communist regime can begin.
Socialism leads to Communism.

So, is the world moving toward communism and away from capitalism? No. It's moving away from capitalism (free enterprise) toward cronyism and monopoly where we will all be equally powerless and poor.

[Bill Ryan]

This is my neighbor farmer's house. It has no windows, and living there is a single mother with 6 teenage/young adult children:



I've never been in the house, but my friend Gilberto has. He said it was perfectly organized, immaculately clean and tidy. And they're all the nicest people.

They live quite okay. They own cows and goats, which they graze on our fields, and they whole family is 100% healthy and in good shape. The kids learned to do farm work as young as aged 6, milking the cows and goats, and as they grew older learned to mend the fences, carry the milk churns to the road for pickup by the milk company (they're heavy!!), and so on.

They don't have a vehicle, of course, but don't need one as the bus fares are super-cheap here ($1 for 20 miles). They wash their clothes in the river, and have a very tiny fridge, an old desktop kind of thing, but it still works.

Here's my point.

There's NO WAY this beautiful, healthy family could get rich — or even have enough $$ or assets as anyone at all reading this right now.

They can't gamble on the stock market, start an expanding business, employ other people, or save for their retirement.

The entire world is unfair. Beautiful, kind people are poor. Greedy sociopaths get mega-rich and gain power.

This is what 'capitalism' leads to. It supports and encourages this inequality.

It all has to come down.

If socialism is the answer, bring it on — for all these hundreds of millions of people who live just like this.

And my neighbors are lucky. In South Africa and parts of India, we see this:



And here's the irony. That's an Alamy licensable photo. So to use it for a professional ('capitalist'!) purpose, Alamy charges a fee — which ranges between $20 and $365 or more.

F*ck them. Do the people living in those tin shacks get a cent? Of course not.

[sdv]

I will emphasise again that fear of and demonization of any 'ism' system is a distraction. Socialism is bad because ..., so let's keep capitalism, which is obviously turned toxic and cannot be reformed. Communism, of course, is the ultimate danger so let's take away people's freedoms and double down on all that is bad about capitalism and democracy in the US.

The truth is North Korea is probably the only pure socialist country, which may have reached the stage of being called communist (which does allow for a 'dear leader', strangely enough).

If you reject socialism because it has inherent dangers, then you must reject capitalism. All systems have strengths and weakness, and all are vulnerable to being corrupted by the worst in human nature. A relatively good and benign leader can be followed by a maniac, with the same system.

What about socialism is beneficial for a population?

Workers own the means of production, not oligarchs. Westerners will think purely in terms of profit, and who gets the biggest slice of the pie, and who deserves the biggest slice of the pie, and recite the propaganda to justify that belief. How about thinking in terms of workers knowing what safety measures are needed on the factory floor, how machinery must be maintained, what quality standards are needed, what working conditions and benefits they need for a good quality of life ...? You see, ownership is not just about money. If workers at a factory do not pay attention to quality standards, what happens? The factory ceases to exist. Oligarchs get protected from consequences for the people they harm and the mistakes they make. That is a tradition that should not be inherited from capitalism.

But, countries that incorporate a huge dose of socialism values in their governance do make sure that education, health, housing are available to all and not denied to people who cannot afford to pay. In some countries, since health is seen as a human right, although privately owned medical facilities and manufacturers exist, they many not make a profit beyond operating profit and they are carefully monitored. That is all surely good?

You don't have to be a socialist to accept some basic socialist values, and in places like the US, people are being conned to reject reform and change that would make the country a much better place because the ultra wealthy class are greedy, and the political class is easily bought. Are people free to murder each other in the US? Then why is allowing people the freedom to exploit and cause suffering others for self-enrichment accepted?

None of the isms are bad. None of them work or do not work.They are all vulnerable to human stupidity, greed and violence, and to ending up with a crazy leader who enables great suffering up be inflicted on the world. With the Nazis it happened quickly. With the Israelis it has happened over decades. With the US it has been more than a century because it has been extremely successful in its propaganda and convincing the world that it was good for nuclear bombs to be dropped on two cities, for countries to be invaded and destroyed, for the entire world to support voracious materialism and consumerism in America, etc.

But let us not be reactionary and put our faith in a theoretical political and economic system. Rather be open to considering all ideas and using what your country needs for all of the population to have a decent standard of living without having you exploit or harm in any way those beyond your borders (or even at home). China and Scandinavian countries, for example, have done very well in lifting and maintaining the standard of living for everyone in their country by incorporating some basic socialist ideas and accepting them as fundamental human rights. Might it not be a good idea to stop saying that capitalism is good and socialism is bad, or, worse, capitalism is kinda bad but socialism is all bad so we must preserve capitalism as protection against socialism?

Is it bad for a family to own a small business and be able to support the family (capitalism)? Workers for that business are not exploited if the state ensures that everyone has a house, health provision, education, even if they cannot pay for it (socialism)? (Equal standards, not a small hovel for the worker and a mansion for the owner.) And everyone can afford reliable and convenient transport, abundant healthy food ...? A family-owned business is capitalism, but all the rest is socialism.

My prediction is that the world is ripe for a revolution, and that revolution will replace Western democracy and capitalism. Those countries who refuse to adapt will be isolated (like North Korea was), but will not be able to continue to exploit and bully others, so it will not be the same. Trump, like many American presidents before him, thinks he can bully and threaten and bomb the world into submission, but he can't. Will Western democracy and capitalism be replaced by socialism and communism and dictators and monarchies? I think the people who will thrive in the new world will embrace their own form of socialism, not repeat the evils of democracy and capitalism, and be watchful about corruption in the socialism they embrace. That is the optimistic view!

[rgray222]

The world is undeniably in a state of change. The younger generation is driving that change. They see that governments around the world have allowed currencies to devalue, debt to skyrocket, inflation to destroy the chances of home ownership and at the same time wages that are not increasing at a pace to keep up with the rising cost of living.

They have been through a pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and immigration and migration problems on a global basis. It is impossible not to see the erosion in trust of major institutions and a lack of trust in overall governance. Governments have promised to fix poverty, education, healthcare, wage gaps and nothing changes. The spread of fake news, misinformation and propaganda is rampant.

They have been watching an endless parade of wars and conflicts in the Middle East. They are witnessing the largest and deadliest war in Europe since WWII. Nuclear proliferation appears ready to explode.

They look around and see billionaires being minted all over the globe, and the world's first trillionaire has finally taken a seat at the table. To this younger generation, income inequality is so real they can see it, feel it, and taste it. To this generation, capitalism means unabated materialism and consumerism.

This change that is just beginning to creep over the horizon is unlikely to manifest itself through socialism, Marxism, communism, or even capitalism. Instead, foundational shifts are being gradually established, brick by brick, towards an entirely new system.

The promises associated with this change will be incredibly appealing. Who could resist the idea of universal healthcare, free education, accessible daycare, generous vacations, good disability policies, and comprehensive retirement plans? Nuclear arsenals will be dismantled, and war and conflict will end. Billionaires and the wage gap will begin to disappear. We will be talking about equity, shared responsibility and global unity.

People are beginning to demand change, the social democratic are just the tip of the iceberg. Most people are eager for change, but they have not yet fully defined what that change should look like. If the world moves away from capitalism without having a clear idea where it is headed, global government with its attractive promises will be standing by to fill the void.

[JackMcThorn]

Where are the new ideas? [Speaking of a younger generation who wants change?] Why do we gravitate between the systems of the old guard? It's crazy. Where is the original thinking? This rise of socialism in america is sort of bizarre. It will attract negative attention of the government.

And frankly, I'm part at fault because I haven't thought of a new idea. [Solutions generally accepted if a complaint is lodged is typically how that works.]

Change; however, is constant. Until it is not. But the recycling is getting boring.

[The KMan]

I think there might be a third way of looking at this beyond capitalism versus socialism. Perhaps the real question is what type of capitalism do we want going forward.

Markets create wealth, innovation and opportunity, but society must ensure that the gains and risks are broadly shared. The question is whether rewards still reflect genuine value creation, or whether the system increasingly rewards those closest to capital, financial engineering and shareholder interests. When executive salaries and bonus structures become disconnected from performance and accountability, trust in the whole system starts to break down.

This short clip on Boeing captures it well. Executives were rewarded handsomely over the same period that the engineering culture and accountability were allowed to erode:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kpRjE3W6nHo

Nobody is saying successful people should not be rewarded. And as others here have pointed out, the Nordic countries show there is another path. Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland are not socialist economies. They are capitalist economies with stronger social foundations, where markets create wealth but society ensures people have access to healthcare, education, security and opportunity.

I will admit I am a big admirer of the Nordic model. What I find compelling is that these countries consistently rank near the top for both business competitiveness and quality of life. It suggests the tradeoff we keep debating may be a false one. You do not have to choose between a dynamic economy and a decent society. They have shown you can build both.

So maybe the future is not about replacing capitalism with socialism. Maybe it is about repairing a version of capitalism that has allowed the gap between wage earners and asset owners to grow too wide. Because if the system cannot address that imbalance, people will not just start looking for alternatives. They will accept whichever alternative arrives first with the most attractive promises, whether or not it can deliver them.

[gini]

The source of real change is not in politics,political systems just reflect in what stage a population is in this ongoing evolutionairy proces toward a more harmonious,healthier and more social ,caring (loving!)society .-Wich is the inevitable outcome for a truly sustainable civilisation-.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- Humanity is realizing slowly but surely that we are divine beings going through a divine proces and that makes the old paradigms like socialism ,capitalism ,left & right outdated.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- In my little life i´ve seen multiplying the numbers of people waking up to the great hypnosis,the programming ,the mind control-so i have no doubt that this will accelerate up to a point of a Love Revolution ending all forms of slavery & social injustice-- -- -- -- -- -- --Ones our hearts are opened we cant close our eyes for the needs of others anymore and we will naturally take care for eachother and will feel the need to protect all what is vulnerable. -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Political systems will reflect that paradigm change when critical mass has reached.And that will happen in due time, meanwhile we just have to follow our hearts,treat others as we want them to treat us and be the living example of the change we wanna see in this world.

[Bill Ryan]

I have another out-of-the-box perspective on this, but (a) it may not belong on this thread and (b) some readers may not find it helpful! But I do propose that it might be worth thinking about.

Do ET civilizations utilize 'capitalism'? I mean, consider this. Do we really assume that visiting ETs (which I'd be sure come from many different societies, wherever they may be based) have businesses, incomes, stock exchanges, and advertising, with some individuals very 'rich' and others very 'poor'?

I'd strongly suspect that everything is 100% egalitarian, and all needs of any kind are provided for by a central organization that manages, allocates and distributes abundant resources. I doubt that any ETs from a technologically advanced culture experience any inequality other than (perhaps) some kind of meritocracy based entirely on specializations and ability.

Is this socialism or communism? Not as we know it.

As a human analogy on a micro scale, imagine a large extended family, (or maybe a small isolated village) living in abundance, maybe on a richly producing farm in an ideal environment.

They have everything they all need: shelter, food, clothing, crops, animals, water, power in the form of horses, donkeys or oxen, and the knowledge of herbs for healing and health.

Is there any inequality in that small group of people? Probably not. If you, reading this, have children or are taking care of an elderly relative, is there any inequality in your family? I doubt it. So are you a 'communist' or 'socialist' family? Of course not. You just make sure that everyone has whatever they need at all times.

[Harmony]

From what I intuit or "dream" There are societies like this as Bill describes. People don't spend their lives paying for a home. All the next generations needs are already met and ready for them before they are born. Naturally they are nurtured to use their own gifts in creating a better world for the next generation to come and not wasted on a system syphoning off their gifts and time to benfit the few at the expense of the people, precious environment and our growth to be our very best in all ways.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I have another out-of-the-box perspective on this, but (a) it may not belong on this thread and (b) some readers may not find it helpful! But I do propose that it might be worth thinking about.

Do ET civilizations utilize 'capitalism'? I mean, consider this. Do we really assume that visiting ETs (which I'd be sure come from many different societies, wherever they may be based) have businesses, incomes, stock exchanges, and advertising, with some individuals very 'rich' and others very 'poor'?

I'd strongly suspect that everything is 100% egalitarian, and all needs of any kind are provided for by a central organization that manages, allocates and distributes abundant resources. I doubt that any ETs from a technologically advanced culture experience any inequality other than (perhaps) some kind of meritocracy based entirely on specializations and ability.

Is this socialism or communism? Not as we know it.

As a human analogy on a micro scale, imagine a large extended family, (or maybe a small isolated village) living in abundance, maybe on a richly producing farm in an ideal environment.

They have everything they all need: shelter, food, clothing, crops, animals, water, power in the form of horses, donkeys or oxen, and the knowledge of herbs for healing and health.

Is there any inequality in that small group of people? Probably not. If you, reading this, have children or are taking care of an elderly relative, is there any inequality in your family? I doubt it. So are you a 'communist' or 'socialist' family? Of course not. You just make sure that everyone has whatever they need at all times.

[sdv]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I have another out-of-the-box perspective on this, but (a) it may not belong on this thread and (b) some readers may not find it helpful! But I do propose that it might be worth thinking about.

Do ET civilizations utilize 'capitalism'? I mean, consider this. Do we really assume that visiting ETs (which I'd be sure come from many different societies, wherever they may be based) have businesses, incomes, stock exchanges, and advertising, with some individuals very 'rich' and others very 'poor'?

I'd strongly suspect that everything is 100% egalitarian, and all needs of any kind are provided for by a central organization that manages, allocates and distributes abundant resources. I doubt that any ETs from a technologically advanced culture experience any inequality other than (perhaps) some kind of meritocracy based entirely on specializations and ability.

Is this socialism or communism? Not as we know it.

As a human analogy on a micro scale, imagine a large extended family, (or maybe a small isolated village) living in abundance, maybe on a richly producing farm in an ideal environment.

They have everything they all need: shelter, food, clothing, crops, animals, water, power in the form of horses, donkeys or oxen, and the knowledge of herbs for healing and health.

Is there any inequality in that small group of people? Probably not. If you, reading this, have children or are taking care of an elderly relative, is there any inequality in your family? I doubt it. So are you a 'communist' or 'socialist' family? Of course not. You just make sure that everyone has whatever they need at all times.

A fascinating view, and I think you are correct that ET societies that have advanced to being interstellar species are not warring over basic needs or attached to a political philosophy. Sustenance, shelter, learning are freely available to all. Unfortunately, my ideas about 'advanced' ET civilizations is contaminated by the Sci-Fi I love to watch and read. Your post is a good foundation to use to evaluate human fantasies about ET civilizations, much of which is projection and propaganda. (I am trying to watch the new Dune movies. They are awful. Completely contaminated by the narcissistic fantasies of the director especially. There is nothing new or groundbreaking that makes these movies worth the cost and effort to replace the original series.)

But, ET societies are probably more socialist than capitalist ... at least those who are not using all their resources to conquer and protect, but rather use resources to explore and discover, for which you need a healthy and advanced population.

[Blastolabs]

I would argue that every country on earth is currently existing as a new form of government / economy that we don't have words to describe yet.

In the past the socialist described a country where the government owned the means of production.
Well in the United States today we don't really produce anything. Neither the people nor the government own the means of production, it happens in other countries.

But most aspects of the USA are currently socialist, this includes

• Infrastructure

Public roads and highways
Bridges and tunnels (many)
Public parks
Sidewalks
Street lighting
Traffic signals
Public beaches
Dams and flood control projects
Municipal water systems
Sewer systems

Education
Public elementary schools
Public middle and high schools
State universities
Community colleges
Public libraries

Emergency services
Police departments
Fire departments
911 dispatch systems
Emergency management agencies

Defense and justice
Military
Courts
Public prosecutors
Public defenders
Federal prisons
State prisons

Health
Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Health Administration hospitals
County hospitals
Public health departments

Transportation
City bus systems
Subways
Light rail
Many commuter rail systems
Air traffic control

Research
Public universities conducting research
Government laboratories

Social Services
Social Security
Unemployment insurance
Workers' compensation (varies by state)
Disability insurance
Other government services
Postal service
Public housing
National parks
Public campgrounds
Building inspection
Food safety inspection
Weather forecasting
Passport services

[AutumnW]

Posted by gini (here)
The source of real change is not in politics,political systems just reflect in what stage a population is in this ongoing evolutionairy proces toward a more harmonious,healthier and more social ,caring (loving!)society .-Wich is the inevitable outcome for a truly sustainable civilisation-.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- Humanity is realizing slowly but surely that we are divine beings going through a divine proces and that makes the old paradigms like socialism ,capitalism ,left & right outdated.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- In my little life i´ve seen multiplying the numbers of people waking up to the great hypnosis,the programming ,the mind control-so i have no doubt that this will accelerate up to a point of a Love Revolution ending all forms of slavery & social injustice-- -- -- -- -- -- --Ones our hearts are opened we cant close our eyes for the needs of others anymore and we will naturally take care for eachother and will feel the need to protect all what is vulnerable. -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Political systems will reflect that paradigm change when critical mass has reached.And that will happen in due time, meanwhile we just have to follow our hearts,treat others as we want them to treat us and be the living example of the change we wanna see in this world.

That should be the fabric of a functional society. The fabric has to be draped over some kind of structure. The structure represents the economic and political systems. Society can't evolve to the point you describe without something to latch onto and work through.

Scaling it down-- love and the emotions need a human brain and body and all of its systems to function, to express what mind at large yearns for.

[AutumnW]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I have another out-of-the-box perspective on this, but (a) it may not belong on this thread and (b) some readers may not find it helpful! But I do propose that it might be worth thinking about.

Do ET civilizations utilize 'capitalism'? I mean, consider this. Do we really assume that visiting ETs (which I'd be sure come from many different societies, wherever they may be based) have businesses, incomes, stock exchanges, and advertising, with some individuals very 'rich' and others very 'poor'?

I'd strongly suspect that everything is 100% egalitarian, and all needs of any kind are provided for by a central organization that manages, allocates and distributes abundant resources. I doubt that any ETs from a technologically advanced culture experience any inequality other than (perhaps) some kind of meritocracy based entirely on specializations and ability.

Is this socialism or communism? Not as we know it.

As a human analogy on a micro scale, imagine a large extended family, (or maybe a small isolated village) living in abundance, maybe on a richly producing farm in an ideal environment.

They have everything they all need: shelter, food, clothing, crops, animals, water, power in the form of horses, donkeys or oxen, and the knowledge of herbs for healing and health.

Is there any inequality in that small group of people? Probably not. If you, reading this, have children or are taking care of an elderly relative, is there any inequality in your family? I doubt it. So are you a 'communist' or 'socialist' family? Of course not. You just make sure that everyone has whatever they need at all times.

Good point, Bill. I hope they are all as you describe. But, just a hunch, on my part, I think at least some of them operate more like bees in a bee hive, or ants in an ant colony, organized in strict hierarchies, where their skills develop in a planned way through special diets. In ant colonies, the queen is the monarch, the soldier ants are aristocrats and gentry. The colony is like a manor home. There don't appear to be any yeoman farmers.

Everyone has a job and there doesn't appear to be a lot of freedom or choice. I think with technology and oligarchic control it would be very easy to slip into an alien future that resembles social insects. It's ironic that everything uber Capitalists seemed to fear, they are in the process of creating. I fear a hive life--being forced into close proximity with fellow slaves under oligarchs and being worked to death.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

The "new version" of socialism they seem to have in store for us is living shoulder to shoulder in 15-minute cities – where we'd own nothing and be happy. You can stick that where the sun doesn't shine.

I don't want bloody socialism. And I don't want capitalism in the form it has taken either. We should all be infinitely sceptical of 'isms' by now. Where there is an ism, a greedy immoral 'elite' class arises to control and enforce that ism, while enriching itself in the process. What we surely want is a system – any system – where those calling the shots are accountable for their policies and actions. That is not possible under isms, because those who would hold them accountable – the people – have no power. That is by design.

Our best chance to survive this century is to abandon isms, and perhaps geopolitics entirely, entirely, and return to purer, more 'natural' living, existing at a smaller scale. A way focused more on cooperation and community. That doesn't mean we all become agrarians and luddites, but that we adopt a simpler, more spiritual life. How we even begin to achieve that with dark Orwellian forces standing in our way, I have no idea at all.

[sdv]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what socialism is, and the main forms of socialism. Socialism is not about having transport, military, environmental protection, etc. under government control, nor is it about having a social security net for the poor. The ruling class (politicians and the very wealthy) have to provide some kind of social assistance to maintain and appease workers at all levels (until robots and AI can take over), hence the proliferation of social programmes in the US, and the public works are required for the businesses that the wealthy own.

AI summary ...
Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by public or collective ownership of the means of production, production for use rather than profit, and a focus on reducing economic inequality.

Collective Ownership: Major resources and factories are owned by the public or the state.
Equitable Distribution: Wealth and goods are shared more evenly to lower gaps between rich and poor.
Production for Use: Items are made to meet human needs instead of chasing private profit.

Democratic Socialism: Combines public control of the economy with a democratic political system.
State Socialism: The government runs most industries and plans economic activity directly.
Market Socialism: Public or worker-owned enterprises operate within a market-based pricing system.

Socialism: An economic system where the workers or the government control the main tools and factories used to make goods. People are often paid based on how much work or effort they put in, and small private businesses can still exist.
Communism: A more extreme form and final goal of socialism. In theory, it removes all private property and money, and the community shares everything so that people get goods based on what they need.

The above AI summaries give you the basics, but socialism is not about having public works programmes nor Medicaid or public schools. In socialism, SpaceX, Amazon, etc. would not be private companies owned by a person or shareholders; they would be companies owned by the people working to provide what people need and not operating under a profit model.

Under the socialist model, you can have local co-operatives (e.g. a group of farmers), and some privately owned business (e.g. in Cuba, you can operate a B&B or small restaurant from your home or privately own a small hardware store) but ALL large industry and businesses are owned by the state/people and function for the support of the people.

I do think there is a lot of misinformation about what socialism and communism are in the US. What is the government and people like Musk trying to make you afraid of and why?

I do concur with Mark ... that being attached to an ism becomes like fervent religious devotion, not governed by reason. Countries and people are different, but every country and every people should have the flexibility to choose a system that produces the best for all citizens, and is open to change when need arises.

I believe that greed and violence are natural human characteristics that can end up controlling a country, no matter what the system is. America still has free speech, to a greater degree than another Western country like the UK, but that has not been enough to stop fascism and extreme greed and hubris of individuals. Nor has the constitution that Americans worship. But a lot of Americans seem to want some kind of transformative change. I doubt that any ism is going to be the choice of Americans, and beware the politicians and wealthy who try to brainwash you with false narratives about isms. If the US makes a major transformation, as many countries such as Russia and China have done more than once, political and economic vocabulary will probably get a new ism to celebrate the change!

On a personal note, I prefer socialism over capitalism and the sham of democracy!

[The KMan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I have another out-of-the-box perspective on this, but (a) it may not belong on this thread and (b) some readers may not find it helpful! But I do propose that it might be worth thinking about.

Do ET civilizations utilize 'capitalism'? I mean, consider this. Do we really assume that visiting ETs (which I'd be sure come from many different societies, wherever they may be based) have businesses, incomes, stock exchanges, and advertising, with some individuals very 'rich' and others very 'poor'?

I'd strongly suspect that everything is 100% egalitarian, and all needs of any kind are provided for by a central organization that manages, allocates and distributes abundant resources. I doubt that any ETs from a technologically advanced culture experience any inequality other than (perhaps) some kind of meritocracy based entirely on specializations and ability.

Is this socialism or communism? Not as we know it.

As a human analogy on a micro scale, imagine a large extended family, (or maybe a small isolated village) living in abundance, maybe on a richly producing farm in an ideal environment.

They have everything they all need: shelter, food, clothing, crops, animals, water, power in the form of horses, donkeys or oxen, and the knowledge of herbs for healing and health.

Is there any inequality in that small group of people? Probably not. If you, reading this, have children or are taking care of an elderly relative, is there any inequality in your family? I doubt it. So are you a 'communist' or 'socialist' family? Of course not. You just make sure that everyone has whatever they need at all times.

Hi Bill, your post got me thinking further.

Your family analogy struck a chord with me because families are not built around an ideology. They simply do what is needed to look after one another. Nobody asks whether a healthy family is capitalist or socialist.

Maybe that is what changes in a truly advanced civilization. Not that it finds the perfect political or economic system but that it moves beyond the need to defend any one system as the answer.

History suggests civilizations do not fail because they chose capitalism, socialism, monarchy or democracy. They fail when they lose the ability to correct themselves. Rome, the Soviet Union and many other empires all reached a point where power became concentrated, elites became insulated and meaningful reform became increasingly difficult.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of an advanced civilization is not perfection but the ability to keep adapting before its mistakes become fatal.