The promises of socialism are as empty as ever. So why is it suddenly so popular on the left?
In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the animals overthrow their human government after being promised a society of equality, shared prosperity and liberation from exploitation. Before long, the pigs take control of the food, the rules and the farmhouse.
Because of course they do.
Orwell was a democratic socialist, not a defender of capitalism — but he understood human nature. His immediate target was Stalinism. But his fable exposes a weakness that democratic socialists have never adequately resolved: How can a society transfer enormous economic power to the government without creating a privileged class of officials who control its distribution?
The Democratic Socialists of America’s new program suggests that the American left is no closer to answering that question.
The DSA is routinely presented as an organization advocating little more than universal health care, affordable housing and higher taxes on billionaires. Its defenders insist that “socialism” now means something like Scandinavian social democracy. They point to popular programs such as Medicare and Social Security and accuse critics of mistaking democratic socialism for Soviet communism.
But the DSA’s 2026–27 program goes far beyond an expanded welfare state. It calls for publicly owned housing, energy and transportation; universal rent control; government job guarantees; steps toward “fully abolishing” the police and prison system; and the transfer of considerably more economic authority from private owners to public institutions.
Its broader agenda proposes dismantling or replacing much of the American constitutional system, including the Senate, Electoral College and existing presidency. Its leaders have endorsed abolishing ICE, borders and prisons, defunding the Pentagon and bringing large corporations under public ownership.
Individual DSA candidates sometimes distance themselves from particular provisions. But this is not merely a campaign for somewhat more generous Social Security. It is a movement seeking to reorganize the American economy and the government that controls it.
That movement is also becoming increasingly influential within the Democratic Party. Gallup found in 2025 that 66 percent of Democrats viewed socialism positively, while only 42 percent viewed capitalism positively. Among Democrats under 50, just 31 percent had a favorable opinion of capitalism.
Those results partly reflect semantic confusion. Many Democratic voters use “socialism” to describe regulated capitalism with stronger benefits. They imagine free health care, inexpensive childcare and European vacations — not collectivized agriculture, ration cards or government bureaucrats deciding where they may live.
But Denmark is not socialist in the historical sense. It is a wealthy market economy in which private companies generate the income that supports a large welfare state. The Scandinavian model retains private property, market prices and competitive businesses. It redistributes some of capitalism’s proceeds without abolishing the system that creates them.
The distinction becomes deliberately slippery. When socialism is criticized, its defenders point to public libraries and Medicare. When socialist organizations write their programs, they call for government ownership and the abolition of existing institutions.
Younger Democrats are particularly susceptible because they know capitalism from experience but socialism primarily from theory. They have lived through the financial crisis, stagnant wages, soaring tuition, unaffordable housing and corporate bailouts. They did not live through the Great Leap Forward, the Soviet famines or the collapse of Eastern Europe’s command economies.
Capitalism is therefore judged by its worst real-world outcomes, while socialism is judged by its best intentions.
Bernie Sanders helped rehabilitate the label by attaching it to widely desired benefits. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed that a self-described democratic socialist could defeat an established Democrat. Zohran Mamdani demonstrated that socialism could become an electoral asset in New York City. The DSA now claims more than 100,000 members — a small number nationally, but one concentrated among highly motivated activists and voters in Democratic primaries.
The American two-party system magnifies their power. The DSA does not compete against Democrats as a separate party. Its candidates generally run as Democrats, gaining access to the party’s ballot line while remaining loyal to a different political organization and a more radical economic program.
Mainstream Democrats consequently face an uncomfortable choice. They can confront the socialist faction and risk alienating activists, younger voters and progressive institutions. Or they can pretend that there is no meaningful difference between Social Security and social ownership of the economy.
So far, accommodation usually looks easier.
This does not mean America is approaching Maoism. Democratic socialism differs from Stalinist communism because it promises multiparty elections and civil liberties. Those are important protections. Yet attaching the word “democratic” does not repeal human nature.
If government controls more housing, energy, transportation, employment, medicine and food, government officials acquire more power over the necessities of life. Elections may decide who supervises those officials, but they cannot guarantee honest administration. Nor can they manufacture the perfect information necessary to distribute scarce goods fairly.
Officials will still protect their careers. Political leaders will reward allies. Bureaucracies will conceal failures. Organized interests will capture regulatory systems. Well-connected people will find ways to obtain privileges unavailable to everyone else.
Socialism’s recurring defect is not simply that insufficiently virtuous people have implemented it. It is that the system requires levels of knowledge, impartiality and restraint that no large group of human beings has ever consistently demonstrated.
The chariot is being advertised again, polished and renamed for a new generation. It promises abundance, equality and justice for everyone.
The unicorns expected to pull it are now called democratic institutions.
(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)