Change of beliefs recently

It took me about five months of really focused listening and thinking to actually understand socialism, marxism, anarchism, all that. Before that, I was already critical of capitalism but felt certain no other system could really work. Socialism was taboo, something I'd learned not to take seriously. I never engaged with it in good faith and dismissed it as both impractical and utopian. For years I deliberately avoided people who called themselves socialists. I mean, I'd learned about the russian revolution in school. Why listen to ideas that only produced failed one party authoritarian states? I was comfortable calling myself a "social democrat", talking vaguely about blending capitalism with some socialism without ever actually examining the latter properly.

Everything changed around half a year ago in March 2025 when I clicked on a YouTube video asking why every historically "communist" country ended up with a single ruling party. The materialist anarchist presenter broke down several myths about what it means to be right or left-wing, showing that leftists can hold right-wing ideologies too. It felt like that moment when a physics concept you've been getting wrong suddenly clicks. My school textbooks had only shown socialism as violent uprisings, brutal dictatorships, and human suffering, basically Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism/authoritarian state socialism/tankies, Leninism/vanguardism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. Since I'm firmly against violent revolutions and violence in general (only resorting to it as an absolute last resort, and I mean truly last resort, not just conveniently excusing it), I'd assumed violent revolution was built into socialism's DNA. I believed in horseshoe theory. But that horseshoe collapses once you realize something fundamental, if Stalinism is authoritarian, hierarchical, and anti-democratic, then it's not left-wing at all. It's a right-wing system wearing a red mask. The video showed me alternative anarchist readings of socialist history and theory you don't really see in mainstream media. Even the word "materialism" surprised me. I'd assumed it meant consumerism, when it actually refers to analyzing societies through their material conditions rather than purely cultural lenses. Realizing how much I'd misunderstood pushed me to go deeper.

From there I dove into studying socialist thought and quickly found it's far from monolithic. Arguments I'd written off as naive revealed tons of nuance, breadth, and internal debate. The process was slow, sometimes overwhelming, but the more I learned, the more I appreciated the democratic socialist ideas of thinkers like Vivek Chibber, Ellen Meiksins Wood, Robert Brenner, and Bhaskar Sunkara's Jacobin. Getting there though meant confronting deeply held beliefs.

My frustration grew sharper watching mainstream self proclaimed liberal "Social Democratic" parties capitulate on economic inequality, militarism, and especially unconditional support for Israel in the ongoing Gaza genocide (March 2025 onwards due to deliberate starvation that's led me to believe it's not only a massacre, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but genocide too). Seeing the political and media class do nothing about it really radicalized me. Politicians who once spoke about equality, liberalism and universalism now seemed mainly committed to defending the status quo and became increasingly illiberal in the name of fake "realism". It was democratic socialists who emerged as the reliable voice of principled opposition. My old faith in politicians doing incremental reform under capitalism without historical vision felt hollow after seeing how quickly self proclaimed liberal progressive reformers retreated the moment capital pushed back, and understanding in detail, this corporate-political connection even in social democratic countries, absolutely disillusioned me.

It's been difficult talking about this with friends though. I sense their discomfort even before "socialism" leaves my mouth. They raise the same arguments I once did, insist they're too consumed by university life to investigate further, and steer the conversation elsewhere. The resulting loneliness surprises me, though I understand where they're coming from. I kept socialism at arm's length for years too. Part of me longs for the intellectual comfort of my former worldview, but I can't return to it. I know now in even more detail that capitalism produces structural injustice, and I see in democratic socialism a viable path to reducing inequality, even if the road is slow and difficult.

As I understand it, democratic socialism is heterodox, political marxism (Ellen Meiksins Wood kind), non deterministic historical materialism (not dialectical materialism metaphysical nonsense to justify authoritarianism), bottom-up, universalist, anti-imperialist, and grounded in a democratic framework including political liberal democracy, civil liberties, parliamentary institutions, and institutions to prevent power from concentrating. It supports market socialism at first, i.e. social democracy without private corporations, instead promoting worker owned cooperatives not controlled by the state but run by workers themselves. The transition from private corp to semi-co-op to co-op will be as proposed by the Meidner Plan, that is gradually and carefully. These co-ops compete with each other, making the market more efficient and encouraging innovation and progress. The state maintains major control only over key sectors like energy, water, education, housing, transportation, healthcare, finance, internet infrastructure, etc. But even in areas like education, housing, and internet access, services are decentralized, publicly funded but not centrally controlled, ensuring democratic participation and local autonomy. Ultimately, the state itself is under democratic control by the people, operating transparently through multi-party elections. It gradually, carefully, and democratically moves toward true socialism from there but only if wanted by the broad public and only if technologically and structurally feasible. This sci-fi reality shouldn't be our focus currently. Though we need to be careful of "champagne socialists" who want everything immediately. That includes anarchists too; they're well intentioned but need to touch grass.

Moving toward democratic socialism isn't easy, but we can start by establishing public and co-op banks, building tenant-run social housing, and making public transit free. Universal basic services like childcare, healthcare, and internet should be publicly funded and accessible to everyone. Taxing the rich more and banning corporate lobbying in favor of public campaign financing will help democratize both wealth and politics. Workplace democracy can begin with worker representation on corporate boards, paving the way for worker-owned cooperatives. To build power, climate activists must join forces with transit unions, tenants with immigrant rights groups, socialists with progressives where strategic. We need mass participation, independent media, legal defense funds, and strong local organizing to make these reforms real and lasting. Before passing such policies we first need to build strong independent workers' institutions and unions so capital can't threaten socialist policies from being implemented. It's said that the Meidner plan didn't work because Sweden, even with its high density of worker unions, didn't build enough strong independent workers' power. This will be a very gradual game for the most dedicated and resilient. People aren't fools to not vote for socialist parties. They know that even if the parties pass socialist reforms, they'll get backtracked in the face of capital's threats. So first socialists need to learn to do politics and build the ground foundation, i.e. strong, high density worker unions that are highly organized.Yet I only see democratic socialists in countries I know, the US, Germany, France, fighting for these very basic social democratic things. Mainstream big S&D Social Democrats have abandoned even modest reforms, choosing instead to align with neoliberal interests and preserve the status quo and have no vision to improve the current condition except their technocratic policies.

Though I find Slavoj Žižek intellectually engaging, I think Vivek Chibber's materialist analysis is a better political strategy. Class is the foundational hierarchy that shapes and reinforces other forms of systemic oppression like racism, sexism, etc. Class conditions the entire social structure, making it the core terrain of struggle. It's the Godzilla of all systemic oppressions. That said, class isn't the only hierarchy needing dismantling. Even if somehow, very unlikely,  dismantling class would eventually lead to a more egalitarian society in terms of ethnicity, gender, and other identities, we can't just sit back and wait for that revolution to trickle down. We have to fight for racial justice, gender liberation, queer rights, disability rights, and decolonization now alongside their big brother, class struggle. And "fighting" doesn't mean shaming or shouting down people who don't yet share these universal values. It means understanding where people come from, their material conditions, their fears, the information and narratives they've been exposed to. It means meeting them with good faith, patience, and humility, not moral superiority. One conversation won't flip someone's worldview. But consistent, compassionate engagement by changing their material conditions can shift people bit by bit, especially if we show them the real harm their beliefs can cause. That's how we build solidarity, not by humiliating(ideal words), but by socializing(material action). And all this goes hand in hand with uplifting the working class. I don't want racial or gender equality becoming luxuries enjoyed only by the wealthy and middle class while working class people remain trapped in ignorance or resentment. Rather than being deterministic orthodox marxists or class reductionists, we can be heterodox marxists while avoiding too much idealism/dialectics (because class is central). It should be scientific in the sense that it's falsifiable and can be revised, corrected with empirical evidence, rather than based on dogma. Many in the working class hold prejudices, but they can change. That process starts by giving them security, dignity, and breathing room through a strong social safety net. When people are less afraid, they have more space to reflect, grow, and see others as equals. A worker on strike may start out conservative, but through struggle they experience solidarity and learn new political possibilities.

Only critiquing capitalism is tricky because for many people capitalism is tied to their fragile personal security. It represents their job, family security, or sense of freedom. When bad faith leftists use memes, films, or cultural critiques that seem to mock consumer culture or "ordinary people", it often backfires. People feel personally attacked, equating anti-capitalist critique with elitist condescension, which can push them further toward right-wing populism. This is when we the left do bad politics. The solution isn't to stop critiquing capitalism but to change how the critique is framed. Instead of shaming individuals for their complicity, the left should focus on exposing how the system betrays people's hard work and dreams, using humor and media that punch up at the rich, the powerful, and the oppressors, not down at the worker, at the weak, at the oppressed. Consideration of power imbalance is crucial. Cultural critique should highlight shared struggles, not moral superiority, and should be tied to real organizing efforts where people experience solidarity directly. This way ideological critique can transform consciousness without alienating the very people the left seeks to mobilize.

Chibber's critique of how the contemporary left has drifted from class struggle to "woke" only symbolism disregarding politics of actual material change, is correct, i.e. Socialism only for the privileged. I think Michel Foucault, whether intentionally or not, contributed to this shift by watering down the importance of class as the core axis of oppression. Foucault's focus on micropowers, discourse, and identity struggles points to decades where economic justice stagnated while social justice issues like LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, sexual liberation, anti-racism, and prisoner rights advanced dramatically, which is actually great progress. It was historically necessary to correct the failings of orthodox Marxism, which had often marginalized or ignored these struggles. But the pendulum swung too far, disregarding sustainable politics. We now live in a world where social justice has been prioritized to the point of saturation, often co-opted by elites and corporations for symbolic purposes, while class exploitation continues unchecked. Working class people, including marginalized groups within the working class, still face economic domination and material hardship, but these struggles have been sidelined. The result is progressive discourse dominated by cultural and identity concerns affecting the privileged and hoping them to trickle down on unprivileged marginalized section, while capitalism continues operating freely beneath the surface making their lives a constant struggle and expecting them to cheer you merely because you share common identity, and to disregard their material conditions. I believe it's time to restore balance. We should keep fighting for social justice but reanchor these struggles in a broader materialist class analysis. Economic liberation must be central to leftist politics again, not because class is the only axis of oppression, but because without confronting class domination, all other forms of liberation risk becoming shallow victories reserved for the privileged. If you are a true democrat and believe in establishing democracy, there is no excuse for you not supporting workplace democracy.

This is only a short summary. There were many moments of doubt and hesitation along the way, too much to explain here. Still, I hope this captures the essence of my transition from reserved critic of capitalism as a social democrat to cautious yet convinced advocate of democratic socialism.

PS – I believe anarchist principles, dismantling all forms of hierarchy and striving for genuine equality, are philosophically essential to any emancipatory project. However, given current global conditions, we lack the systemic, technological, and social foundation to implement a full anarchist society on a large scale. The complexity and growth oriented nature of the modern world make it difficult to realize anarchism in its purest form right now. Let's keep it to sci-fi philosophical discussion and not let it enter to real world politics.

That's why I see democratic socialism, as described by Vivek Chibber and Bhaskar Sunkara's Jacobin, as the most pragmatic path forward. as Chibber says “In the short term we’re all social democrats". Radical social democracy, at least in the developed world, offers a gradual, non violent route to systemic change while still carrying potential for radical transformation, unlike the current SPD of Germany that is all socialist aesthetics and no substance. It is a warning, when movements lose their vision and commitment to true liberty, for all, they become tools of the status quo.

But even democratic socialism isn't enough on its own. Without anarchist philosophical principles of liberty as its moral compass, it risks becoming static, bureaucratic, or authoritarian, either drifting right like the SPD or worse, veering into centralized vanguardist systems like Marxist-Leninism, which sacrifice freedom in the name of control, separating the ends from the means. Though I don't believe democratic socialism would do that, even on its own. Even in a successfully implemented democratic socialist society, oppressive hierarchies will persist, and without constant pressure to dismantle them via changing the material conditions that cause them, the project of socialism stalls. But we shouldn't rush. We should do it gradually, bit by bit, only if conditions allow. I have been repeating it a lot because it is necessary. We shouldn't rush and dismantle all forms of hierarchies. Some are absolutely needed to manage things but they don't have to be oppressive.

That's why I take the pragmatism of democratic socialism as a political strategy but anchor it in the ideals of libertarian socialism, aka anarchism. This is how socialism can be sustainable and remain committed to true emancipation for everyone, including the most marginalized. But first, to even initiate anything, we need to participate in politics that actually sustains socialism in the long run and not just be out of touch with the public, just talking to the mirror.