When the socialist, Zohran Mamdani, became the mayor of New York City in January 2026, it seemed to set a whole lot of things in motion. It’s interesting because it’s only been a couple of years ago that some of the progressive Congressional Representatives in the “the squad,” found themselves voted out of office. Plenty of voters thought that the progressive squad was on a downhill slide. Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, however, were still just as vocal as ever in their socialist rhetoric.
Mamdani’s victory in New York City, the largest city in the country, and home to Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange, was not anticipated by anyone until it was too late. Progressive politicians were impressed. A prevailing attitude developed; if New York City could be turned from blue to Navy blue, then was it doable elsewhere? Many Progressives think it is.
Mainstream Democrats were surprised when 28 Progressive members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) beat-out incumbent Democratic members of Congress. As my Dad (in his late 90s) would say, “this is not your New Dealer grandfather’s Democratic Party anymore.” No, it surely is not.
Progressive elites now have the answer to their question of whether donating dollars to DSA-backed election campaigns are worth the investment. In the minds of those monied, far left-wingers, yes, they are.
Some readers are familiar with my professional writer’s motto, “If I Can’t Prove It, I Don’t Write It.” The same readers know my penchant for writing about what is going on behind the headlines, and not regurgitate them. To that end, let’s take a look at Socialism in politics and society globally, with a broader view from 30,000 feet.
Globally, current day Socialism is a mixed bag of some legitimate success, and some legitimate failures. But the majority of socialist-based countries are muddling along in the middle, and dealing with the inevitable consequences of a system with the ideal of “one-size-fits-all,” except when it doesn’t.
Origins of the Socialist Movement
Just to level-set the narrative about Socialism and Communism, and keep it simple, all Communist countries are Socialistic. But most Socialist countries are not Communists. Many pundits say that either Communism is Socialism on steroids, or Socialism is Communism-lite. If you are pro-Socialism, you are quick to assert that you are not a Communist. Whereas, Socialism’s detractors are just as quick to label Socialists as Communists. For the sake of this discussion, I’ll give Socialism the benefit of the doubt that it is not Communism-lite.
Up through the 1700s, most countries were monarchies, with much of the working class being minimally educated. The working class saw Socialism as a fair method of government and society. The problem that most would-be Socialists had was a lack of education, money, and political experience in running a government.
What is now called Great Britain, went through multiple internal wars in the 1600s and the first half of the 1700s. I am purposely using “internal wars” instead of civil wars because there were conflicts between barons, the Parliament and the Crown, and between the states of Ireland, Scotland and England. All of these conflicts have been loosely referred to as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Although each conflict had its nuances, they basically came down to discord over the British monarchy.
The second most important country in the world during the same timeframe was France. The French Revolution ran throughout the 1790s; it led to the deposing of King Louis XVI in 1793. Shortly thereafter, the king was executed.
Aside from the wars just mentioned in France and Great Britain, there were five other major internal wars worldwide. Nearly all of them were rooted in the dislike of monarchies. The term, “Socialism” was popularized in the 1820s and 1830s in Great Britain and France during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution further exacerbated the “us vs them” mentality. The Socialist movement gained global attention starting in 1848, when the socialist Karl Marx, PhD, published his book, “The Communist Manifesto.” Marx’s book gave credibility to Socialism as a movement to be reckoned with over the next 100 years.
America’s Dealings with Socialism
At the time of the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers were wary of all the “Great Powers” of Europe. In that era it was commonplace for influential monarchies to run roughshod over anyone who got in their way. The Founding Fathers would readily agree with this characterization. Other than France, the 13 colonies preferred to have prominent powers visit America for international trade purposes, but go home when they were done.
President George Washington wrote in his 1797 Farewell Address that, “America’s destiny & future prosperity is rooted in being a global trader, traveling to distant lands, but returning home to the America we fought for. America is, and will be, “In” this world, but we are not “Of” this world. We are “Of” America, and nowhere else. Why else would we have sacrificed so much to form this great land, only to be of the world that we strove to separate from?”
The Founding Fathers had a distaste for monarchies for many reasons. One of those reasons was mistreatment and oppression of the working class. It was just another reason to eschew monarchies in the formation of the United States of America.
Karl Marx’s book was translated from German to English, and became available in the U.S. in the 1850s. The timing of its arrival and serious interest was subordinated by the Civil War.
The basic freedoms enjoyed by Americans mitigated the popularity of Socialism until the 1880s. A union organizer, Eugene V. Debs, gained prominence when he adopted the Socialist movement as part of his labor organizing activities. He ultimately ran for President. Debs was a founder of the Social Democratic Party of America. He was on the Presidential ballot in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 as a socialist. He was twice convicted of Federal crimes and sent to jail.
Even though Debs became a revered socialist leader amongst the working class, the rest of the country ranged from ambivalence to deep seated mistrust of the Socialist movement in America.
Socialism Around the World
Since Socialism never became mainstream in American politics or society, proponents of the movement have largely been forced to cite Socialism’s acceptance in other countries. Its detractors easily point to other countries that have had less success with it. The following information is a 2026 look at Socialism Around the World. Some countries listed are known for extreme socialism, which is Communism.
Countries with Socialist Dominance for the Longest Duration
It’s significant to note that no country had enough moxie or favorable political climate to make the leap into a Socialist state until after World War II. Most countries with deep-seated Socialism, like Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and China, came from civil wars, colonialism, or monarchies.
Socialist Countries with Socialism Added to Their Constitution
Democratic Countries, then Socialistic, and back to a Democracy
Countries in a Different Socialistic System
Countries in the fourth category are known as Social Democracies. These European countries have had socialist and left-wing democratic parties in power for many decades. They are classified as Social Democracies because their economies are based on capitalism, but their political bent is solidly liberal. The biggest difference between the Socialist countries noted above and the Social Democracies is their limit on where and how socialism is applied. The Social Democracies are mindful of going too far with Socialism. This is always a concern with Socialists wanting to push even farther to the Left.
Social Democracies are informally referred to as followers of the “Nordic Model.” The following five countries are in this category:
These nations are the most frequently cited as examples of socialism that works. The Nordic Model is known for certain common social institutions, which are:
Universal Healthcare: 100% funded through taxes.
Free Higher Education: The government fully subsidizes a college education for as high as someone wants to go. Needless to say, they have a highly educated workforce, and many citizens in these countries are fluent in English and their native tongue.
Strong Labor Unions: Nearly all non-management workers are covered by collective bargaining, including many occupations that are salaried jobs in the U.S. (i.e.; accountants, engineers, nurses, etc.)
High Taxation: High personal income and consumption taxes fund the extensive welfare state.
Surprisingly, the high taxation hasn’t been a common factor in wealthy citizens leaving the Nordic countries. This is mostly due to the insistence that for the amount of taxes paid, it had better be for the best of everything. The Nordic countries have world class healthcare, superb public safety and a low crime rate, and their public works, like roads, electricity generation, parks, and so on, are the best in Europe.
Another factor that doesn’t give the elites a reason to leave is taxation has been limited to earned income tax and sales tax. The one exception is Norway, which passed a law levying a wealth tax in 2022. The detractors warned the Norwegian Government repeatedly of the negative byproducts of a wealth tax; no one listened.
Not only did wealthy Norwegians raise the warning flag, but the other four neighboring countries spoke up, too. All of them had tried wealth taxation and failed miserably. The laws were rescinded 15-20 years ago.
The expected exodus of rich Norwegians came to pass; many of them moved to Switzerland.
Instead of the government in Oslo dialing back on the wealth tax, they doubled down! The Government enacted legislation that instituted an Exit Tax for people with a high asset valuation. Oslo is now trying to extricate itself from the mess they created.
A key fact about the Nordic countries’ use of Socialism that is lost on most proponents is, how did they manage to implement the Socialist reforms so successfully? The answer is pretty simple: after World War II ended, all European countries, especially those occupied by the Germans, had devastated economies and massive rebuilding to undertake. Having no healthcare system, a seriously depleted workforce of people with college educations, the government’s concluded that starting out with nothing, gave the opportunity to adopt socialist programs and policies that would benefit everyone.
If the United States tried to implement widespread socialist practices, it would create massive problems that would be difficult to overcome. The costs would be exorbitant and the public would end up with mediocre goods and services.
A Novel Idea for Collecting More Taxes
Redistribution of wealth has never worked in a democracy or a democratic republic like the United States. Some taxing authorities in America are always looking for a path to untapped tax revenue. An example of this occurred in the 1990s in Los Angeles County, CA.
At the time, Los Angeles County was home to the two largest aerospace contractors that produced satellites…TRW, Inc, and Hughes Aircraft Company. Most people don’t realize who actually owns the non-governmental satellites orbiting the Earth. Often times a satellite will be launched, with the stated commercial sponsor, like AT&T, for example. AT&T would fund the development and manufacturing costs, but then would sell it back to TRW or Hughes. Satellites of that era might have 25-30 discrete channels. AT&T had no need for that many channels, and no expertise in operating a satellite. They might retain 4-5 channels, but Hughes or TRW would lease out the remaining channels for a profit.
Given the satellite business that the two companies worked in, their niche was exclusive and no one had the capital to invest in a start-up Satellite company. And neither company could afford the costs of moving elsewhere. The bulk of their supply chain and engineering talent pool was in Southern California.
This got the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor to thinking about TRW and Hughes’ satellite businesses. The tax assessor said it was normal for the County to assess property taxes on real estate, but also any assets owned by a person or company. Companies, for example, paid taxes yearly on their inventory of parts and equipment. In the tax assessor’s wisdom, he concluded the satellites each company owned that were circling the Earth were capital assets and ought to be taxed.
County governments had no taxing authority outside the county, nor outside of the state or the country. The courts ultimately ruled that L.A. County could not impose taxes on the satellites flying overhead. The ruling was strictly based on lack of jurisdiction.
Other than the Nordic countries that embraced socialist programs from the beginning, all the rest have struggled with the movement. Many of the countries embracing socialism either limp along, or they establish an authoritarian state to force the system to work.
I doubt this analysis will convince anyone to forego the pursuit of Socialism. The best we can hope for is educating the rest of us that widespread Socialism in America is a disaster waiting to happen. Just look at the mess that Socialism has left in its wake.
Subscribe and Save This Website with an app on your iPhone/iPad or Android phone: While on this website, click on the appropriate button in the upper right hand corner as if you were going to Share the site with someone else. Click on ADD TO HOME SCREEN, and you’re done. On a PC, do the following: Click More Tools > Create Shortcut, and then check “Open as window.”
Source: American Socialism?
turnnoffyourmind
andulkaphoto
titsay
gamechangershow
amandla
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
snowghoul
blakekathryn
