Is the World Moving Toward Socialism and Away From Capitalism

[rgray222]

Democratic socialists achieved major primary victories in 2026, unseating entrenched incumbents and expanding their influence within the Democratic Party ahead of the midterms. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) reported 35 candidates advancing from primaries out of 150 backed, marking a significant surge in anti-establishment support.

Democratic socialists are winning. Their ambitions don’t stop at Capitol Hill.


From left: Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, Zohran Mamdani and Darializa Avila Chevalier during a rally at Kings Theater in New York City on June 18, 2026.

A year ago, the Democratic Socialists of America had two members in Congress. After Tuesday, they are on track to have at least five — and their leaders are aiming higher still.

The group’s newest triumph came in Denver, where Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist, toppled Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, who has represented Colorado’s 1st Congressional District since 1997. It is the latest in a run of Democratic primary upsets that has the DSA eyeing further gains this fall — and, its leaders say, a competitive run at the White House in 2028.

Kiros is one of several DSA-backed insurgents to win Democratic primaries in the last several weeks — among them Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, who prevailed in two heavily Democratic seats in New York — enough to more than double the group’s presence in a chamber where Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan are its only current members. The ranks could grow again Aug. 4, when former Rep. Cori Bush, also a democratic socialist, tries to reclaim the St. Louis-area seat she lost in 2024. Public polling in her rematch against Rep. Wesley Bell is scant.

Megan Romer, a national DSA co-chair, predicted the newcomers would change how the chamber operates.

“You’re going to see some real fighters in there who are really ready to go to bat for making sure that things are the best they can be, as opposed to jumping straight to sort of milquetoast compromise that benefits the ultrawealthy,” she told MS NOW.

The democratic socialist candidates on the ballot this year have campaigned on the priorities at the core of the DSA platform: Medicare for All, more affordable housing, higher taxes on wealthy Americans and a forthrightly pro-Palestinian foreign policy.

Establishment Democrats have bristled at the candidates’ combative posture and far-left positions, warning that an all-or-nothing commitment to those goals could produce gridlock in a Democratic-controlled House and weigh the party down in general elections.

“We need centrists to win nationally,” Democratic strategist Al Mottur told MS NOW. “I think that some of these positions are so extreme that they will be rejected when we head to a national climate, which is what 2028 will be.”

But DSA leaders say they don’t expect their members to break with fellow Democrats on every vote on the Hill.

“Probably they will be very safe [Democratic] votes on things that are serving the people,” Romer said.

Avila Chevalier, 32, who unseated Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th District, has drawn criticism from fellow Democrats over her far-left positions and a provocative social media history. She told MS NOW she believes she can work with anyone in the party.

Full Story: https://www.ms.now/news/democratic-s...mary-victories

[Mark]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Figuring out exactly what people want will help shape our economic futures. Is Socialism in our future?

I think what we are seeing is a limitation in the data collection instruments.

I don't think the young people are at all interested in historical definitions of political movements that were very particular to a time and space and framework of beingness foreign to their lives.

I think what they want is connection. What they want is caring. What they want is purpose. Togetherness. Oneness.

They are feeling one side of the Zeitgeist, that collective urging that is being expressed in a di-pole fashion, as some inhabit mental frameworks of extreme individuality while others feel the urge to merge.

Whoever makes the survey instruments decides the interpretive outcome.

These survey instruments coming to this conclusion are bound by sociological and political conceptions that are no longer valid.

[Tintin]

"...and a sort of influenza of Anarchism soon spread through the society. When we issued our fortunately little known Tract No. 4, "What Socialism Is," we divided it into two sections, one answering the question from the Collectivist and the other from the Anarchist point of view. The answer did not amount to much either way; for the tract contains nothing that was not already to be found better stated in the famous Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels."

- George Bernard Shaw (1892)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
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.

100 percent

The hell with 'Socialism'. As you rightly say, damned 'isms' - I'm sick of those too, and have stated, and felt, exactly what you have articulated here, for many a year now.

Anybody who really wants to begin to understand what Socialism actually is, is encouraged to read Fabian Tract No.41 authored by George Bernard Shaw (a eugenicist) from 1892. It is very different to what it is imagined to be.

It isn't pretty

Source: https://avalonlibrary.net/Fabian_Soc...rnard_Shaw.pdf

Just that one document defines the term.

[sdv]

Intellectually I do understand that Westerners especially (but not exclusively) have been brainwashed into believing that democracy and capitalism are the good and pure, and 'work', whereas socialism or communism are to be feared and rejected.

Fanatical adherence to any ideology is dangerous, in my opinion, but each country should consider its own needs (for everyone) and be open to seeing the merits in each system, adapt and adopt what is best for that country, and be adaptable in a world that does change for many reasons.

Adherents of Western democracy and capitalism probably feel besieged now because the story of freedom and democracy (threats being communists, terrorists, Muslims, etc ) being the perfect system for everyone (economically and politically) is a lie and always was a lie. The monarchy in the UK has always been close to monarchies in the Middle East. How does that square with US-led freedom and democracy? (See, I am picking on the Brits now!)

Ernie, no one wants you dead! But, if you are living in the democratic capitalist West (especially the US), people outside the West, like me, see you as being in danger and supporting a system and ideology that does you harm to the last breath.

My country is going through the flux of change right now, and of course there are a lot of people running around like headless chickens. Radical change is scary and people do get hurt and there always is the danger of a Trump-like figure taking power with the promise to save everyone. Unfortunately, a negative aspect of the online world is that a lot of stupid and/or bigoted, greedy, etc. people can get a lot of attention. In my opinion, the risks of censorship far outweigh the risks of stupid people leading us like fabled lemmings to the cliff face.

Here are the definitions of socialism and capitalism (AI generated)...

Looking at each objectively, which aspects would you want your country to adopt?

Core Ideas of Socialism
Shared Ownership: Factories, land, and major resources belong to the public or the government.
Fair Wealth: Money and goods are shared based on what people need or how much they work.
No Big Class Gaps: The system tries to stop a small group of rich people from having all the power over workers.

Main Types of Socialism
Democratic Socialism: People vote in a free democracy while the government runs key parts of the economy to help everyone.
Revolutionary Socialism: Followers believe the working class must rise up to completely end capitalism.
Social Democracy: A system that keeps private business but uses high taxes to pay for strong social welfare, healthcare, and schools.

From Invostepedia ...
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit-driven activity.
Prices, production, and investment are largely guided by supply and demand.
Most modern economies blend capitalism with government regulation and public services.
Supporters say it drives innovation and growth; critics say it can lead to inequality and market failures.

Consider food production ...

In a capitalist system, corporations own huge tracts of land and produce food from that land. Since profit is a driving motive, corporations will aim for lower costs of production and higher yields, which ends up compromising the quality of food. Since political parties and politicians rely on donations, those with the most money can buy politicians and brainwash the electorate through advertising. So, you have to fix the political system to regulate food production for the good of the people. (In reality, this means subsidizing famers and having strict regulations on the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and pricing of food, and wages and working conditions for workers.)

No ism can create a perfect outcome for the people everywhere in the world under all circumstances. And, considering the above example, what about a country that imports most of its food because it does not have the land and climate to grow its own food? The requirement for laws and regulations regarding land ownership and use would be completely different.

Since this thread is about socialism, and I have made it clear that I am more socialist than capitalist, perhaps we should each consider 'if my country became politically and economically pure socialist overnight, what would work and what would not?'. If your country has a Western democratic capitalist system, perhaps you would have to start with what you have to 'get rid of' in order to rein in the excesses of capitalism and the corruption of Western democracies. If you are outraged by the latter part of that sentence, then I ask you if you support colonialism by force and genocide, because if not and your country is a democracy, how come it supports or supported Israeli colonialism by force and genocide?

It we are heading toward a backlash against the ills of democracy and capitalism, and Westerners are being brainwashed about socialism by the political and billionaire 'elites', it might be a good idea to not only think deeply about but also be active in shaping the future when the capitalist/Western democracy house of cards crashes. Americans, will JD Vance be embraced as a hero after Trump as he brings a sense of normalcy, which is actually just the usual capitalist democratic hegemony? And can he succeed in going back to the past in a rapidly changing world? Or will the introduction of aspects of socialist ideas by politicians like Mamdani be embraced? China adapted and is doing very well ... what do they call it, 'socialism with special Chinese characteristics'?

[sdv]

Starting from scratch, my basics ...

All citizens have access to the following according to need and means (so, everyone gets equal access to education, no matter how much you can afford to pay or not) :
Healthy food
Clean water
Healthcare
Adequate housing
Public transport
Education

So, none of the above can have private profit for shareholders and wealth accumulation as a driving motive that determines production and pricing. Quality and safety standards for all of the above are set by the people through public representatives.

[rgray222]

I have decided to post this here because it really highlights the problem with Socialism. It invariably creates an elite class at the top. Mamdani has only been in office for a short period of time, and he is already demanding special services for himself and his family.

Mamdani’s Wife Wanted NYPD Officers to Escort Her Into War Zones — the NYPD Said Absolutely Not



The mayor of New York City built his entire political identity on calling the NYPD racist, anti-queer, and “a major threat to public safety.” He campaigned to defund them, slash the department, and replace police with social workers. Then his wife, Rama Duwaji, decided she needed NYPD officers to escort her on a personal vacation to Syria and Lebanon — two countries the State Department has designated as Level 4: Do Not Travel.

The NYPD had a response. It was brief and blunt.

“The NYPD does not send officers to countries with level four travel advisories for discretionary reasons not linked to investigative work,” a department spokesperson told the New York Post.

That’s the whole story. The man who wanted to defund the police needed the police. The police told him no.

City Hall had been insisting that Rama Duwaji, Mamdani’s wife, would be accompanied by a taxpayer-funded NYPD security detail on her September 20 personal trip to the Middle East, and that the detail was traveling “upon the strong recommendation of the NYPD.” A source familiar with the arrangements noted that Duwaji had specifically requested the police protection after making a previous overseas trip without it.

Full Story: https://usajournal.news/2026/08/11/m...nypd-officers/

[Agape]

I thought about it for a while yet and came to subtle conclusion.

Capitalism of today is also "dirty socialism" where it depends on human society and live market for existence .

Pure capitalism can build self from its skills and mining of natural resources . "Capitalist" may accumulate tools or art they have created .

"Dirty capitalist " collects and resells skills and art of others . It makes him known as "great socialist".


Communist is essentially "orthodox socialist".

Sorted for the next World Economy Forum should they ask the same question.




😂

[Bill Ryan]

A typically (highly) intelligent comment from Chris Martenson, talking to Natali and Clayton Morris on Redacted yesterday. (Start in at 48:30)

~~~

I'm no fan of capitalism [as we're told it works here] or socialism. This whole idea that you have more than I do, so it should be redistributed somehow. That doesn't work. It's always failed.

But you're right, Natali, we don't have capitalism. Capitalism would be with the government enforcing a minimal rule set so that the free scrum of the free market could play out. This past couple of weeks and months, it's become completely obvious that our markets are anything but free and fair. The oil market's being manipulated, gold has been manipulated, silver manipulated, the whole market has been being manipulated. The whole thing.

So, it's not capitalism. And then you find things like here's what should actually happen. So if somebody like Pfizer makes a deadly product that kills and maims a lot of people, they should go out of business. But that never happens because the government runs interference for them, says, "Oh, we passed a PREP act. You don't have that right."

So we don't have capitalism. Capitalism is where liabilities and assets and consequences all kind of line up, and may the best person win. And we don't have that.

[ ... ]

It was Simon Dixon who pointed this out to me, so I'm really glad about this because I think I labored under a misapprehension for a long time, which is we have the executive branch and we've got Congress and the Senate and then they make laws and corporations sit under there.

And he said, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Corporations are at the top of our heap right now and all the rest of that machinery is is just is their owned machinery."

China does it differently because China kept their political class at the top of the heap.

And here it's obviously different.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Comparing to China, eh?
Yup, we could do the same thing here. We could murder all our scientists and professors and teachers. We could disappear all opposition politicians. We could herd our people hither and yon to keep them out of the way of "progress". We could install our youth as leaders, without experience or the mettle to implement change. And we could call it success that a mere 25% of the population is affluent to one extent or another.

Some comparison.

[onawah]

I could go on and on, citing all the dystopian things going on in China which even today make the US look like utopia by comparison, but there's not much point doing that on the forum these days, as the CCP propaganda seems to have taken hold here much more than I ever would have imagined.
The CCP's rulership is the wet dream of the Globalists for the whole world, but it's still not materialized enough for them elsewhere as yet (other than North Korea, of course).

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
Comparing to China, eh?
Yup, we could do the same thing here. We could murder all our scientists and professors and teachers. We could disappear all opposition politicians. We could herd our people hither and yon to keep them out of the way of "progress". We could install our youth as leaders, without experience or the mettle to implement change. And we could call it success that a mere 25% of the population is affluent to one extent or another.

Some comparison.