Change of beliefs recently

It has taken me roughly six months of concentrated listening and reflection to grapple with socialism, marxism, anarchism, etc. Before that journey began, I was already a critic of capitalism, yet I felt certain that no other system could really work for people. Socialism was taboo territory, something I'd learned not to take seriously. I had never engaged with it in good faith and dismissed it as both impractical and utopian. For years I deliberately kept my distance from people who called themselves socialists. After all, I told myself, I had learned about the russian revolution at school. Why lend an ear to ideas that, in my view, produced only failed one party illiberal states? Comfortable in the label “social democrat”, I spoke vaguely of blending capitalism with some socialism but never examined the latter on its own terms.

Everything shifted about half a year ago when I clicked on a YouTube video asking why every historically “communist” country ended up with a single ruling party. The presenter dismantled several myths about what it means to be right- or left-wing, revealing that leftists can hold right-wing ideologies too. The feeling was similar to that moment when a physics misconception finally fits into place. My school textbooks had portrayed socialism solely with violent uprising and human suffering, basically Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism/Red Fascism/Authoritarian State Socialism, Maoism, Leninism, and because I am firmly against violence, I had assumed violent revolution was baked into its DNA and I did believe in the 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. Yet the video showed me alternative readings of socialist history and theory that you don't really see on mainstream media. Even the word “materialism” surprised me. I had assumed it's about consumerism, when in fact it referred to analysing societies through their material conditions rather than purely cultural lenses. Realising how much I had misunderstood pushed me to go deeper.

From there I then dived into a thorough study of socialist thought and quickly found that it is far from monolithic. Arguments I had once written off as naive revealed a great deal of nuance, breadth, and internal debate. The process was slow, at times overwhelming, but the more I learned, the more I came to appreciate the democratic socialist ideas of thinkers like Vivek Chibber and Bhaskar Sunkara. Getting to that point, however, meant confronting my deeply held beliefs. I had been skeptical of unskilled migration, I had idealised the West as democracy’s natural home, and I had believed a strong military was essential to protect that democracy at any cost. Encountering a socialist lens left me disillusioned with those positions, because so much of what I was reading made unsettling sense.

My frustration grew sharper when I watched mainstream social democratic parties capitulate on economic inequality, on militarism, and especially on unconditional support for Israel in the ongoing Gaza genocide. The politicians who once spoke the language of equality now seemed committed mainly to defending the status quo. It was democratic socialists who emerged as the reliable voice of principled opposition. My old faith in incremental reform under capitalism felt hollow after seeing how quickly self proclaimed reformers retreated the moment capital pushed back.

Yet, it has been difficult to talk about these things with friends. I sense their discomfort even before the word "Socialism" leaves my mouth. They raise the same arguments I once did, insist they are too consumed by university life to investigate further, and steer the conversation elsewhere. The resulting loneliness surprises me, though I understand where they are coming from. I, too, kept socialism at arm’s length for years. Part of me longs for the intellectual comfort of my former worldview, but morally I cannot return to it. I know now 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 democratic socialism, it is at least marxian if not marxist, bottom-up, anti-imperialist, and grounded in a liberal democratic framework that includes political democracy, civil liberties, and parliamentary institutions. It supports market socialism without corporations, instead promoting worker owned cooperatives that are not controlled by the state but run by the workers themselves. These co-ops compete with one another, which makes the market more efficient and encourages innovation and progress. The state maintains major control only over key sectors such as energy, water, education, housing, transportation, healthcare, finance, internet infrastructure, etc. However, even in areas like education, housing and internet access, services are decentralized, publicly funded but not centrally controlled, to ensure democratic participation and local autonomy. Ultimately, the state itself is under democratic control by the people, operating transparently and through multi party elections.

To move toward democratic socialism is not 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 all. 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, and 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. Yet I see only the democratic socialists in countries I know of like the US, Germany, and France fighting for these very basic social democratic things. Mainstream social democrats have abandoned even modest reforms, choosing instead to align with neoliberal interests and preserve the status quo.

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 is the Godzilla of all systemic oppressions. That said, class isn’t the only hierarchy that needs to be dismantled. Even if somehow dismantling class would eventually lead to a more egalitarian society in terms of ethnicity, gender, and other forms of identity, we can’t afford to 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 along with 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, and 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 can shift people bit by bit, especially if we show them the real harm their beliefs can cause in the world. That’s how we build solidarity, not by humiliating, but by socializing. And all of this goes hand in hand with uplifting the working class. I don’t want to see racial or gender equality become luxuries enjoyed only by the wealthy and middle class, while working class people remain trapped in ignorance or resentment. 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. 

Critiquing capitalism is tricky because for many people, capitalism is tied to their personal identity. 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. 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 and powerful, not down at workers. 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 away from class struggle is correct. I think Michel Foucault, whether intentionally or unintentionally, 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 led to decades where economic justice stagnated, while social justice issues like LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, sexual liberation, anti racism, and prisoner rights advanced dramatically. This wasn’t a bad thing. In fact, it was historically necessary to correct the failings of orthodox Marxism, which had often marginalized or outright ignored these struggles. However, the pendulum swung too far. 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, are still facing economic domination and material hardship, but these struggles have been sidelined. The result is a progressive discourse dominated by cultural and identity concerns, while capitalism continues to operate freely beneath the surface. I believe it’s time to restore balance. We should continue fighting for social justice, but reanchor these struggles in a broader, materialist class analysis. Economic liberation must once again be central to leftist politics, 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.

This is only a short summary. There were many moments of doubt and hesitation along the way. This is too long 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 that anarchist principles, dismantling all forms of hierarchy and striving for genuine equality, are essential to any emancipatory project. However, given the 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 at this time.

That’s why I see democratic socialism, as described by Vivek Chibber and Bhaskar Sunkara, as the most pragmatic path forward. It offers a gradual, non violent route to systemic change while still carrying the potential for radical transformation, unlike the kind of reformist social democracy represented by figures like Eduard Bernstein and parties like the historical SPD, who not only abandoned socialist goals but also enabled reactionary violence, such as the murder of Rosa Luxemburg by the Freikorps. That episode stands as a warning, when movements lose their vision and commitment to liberty, they become tools of the status quo.

But even democratic socialism isn’t enough on its own. Without anarchist principles as its moral compass, it risks becoming static, bureaucratic, or authoritarian, either drifting to the right like the SPD or even worse veering into centralized, vanguardist systems like Leninism or Maoism, which sacrifice freedom in the name of control. Which I don’t believe democratic socialism would, even on its own. Even in a successfully implemented democratic socialist society, hierarchies will persist and without a constant push to dismantle them, the project of socialism halts.

That’s why take the pragmatism of democratic socialism as a political strategy, but anchor it in the ideals of libertarian socialism, aka anarchism. This is the way socialism can remain committed to true emancipation for everyone, including the most marginalized.