Opinion: Democratic socialism or social democracy?

As the US approaches the midterm elections on November 3, political controversy is brewing over the political ideology of democratic socialism, particularly because several candidates identifying themselves as democratic socialists are seeking election.

In the US, as in Caribbean nations like Jamaica, where political parties and candidates identify themselves as democratic socialists, the public dialogue often indicates misunderstanding about the differences among socialism, democratic socialism and communism.

While the three terms are related, they are not interchangeable. This distinction is especially important in the US because candidates sometimes use these labels differently.

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy in which important productive resources, businesses, industries, land or natural resources are owned or controlled collectively rather than primarily by private owners seeking profit. Traditional socialism challenges capitalism's basic premise of private ownership of the means of production.

But there are many varieties of socialism. Some allow substantial private businesses and markets; others envision more extensive government or collective ownership.

Democratic socialism adds a crucial word: democratic. Democratic socialists generally want to move beyond capitalism while maintaining and expanding political democracy, civil liberties, elections and popular participation.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), for example, explicitly says it wants democratic control of major economic institutions, advocating policies like universal health care, stronger labor rights and greater public ownership. It also says its ultimate objective is a socialist society rather than merely a stronger welfare state.

In simplified form, capitalism means private ownership, free markets and profits. Democratic socialism means democratic government, greater collective, public or worker ownership and control, and markets in some areas.

Communism is a more comprehensive form of collective ownership, traditionally envisioning the eventual abolition of private ownership of productive property and, in Marxist theory, ultimately a classless society.

Historically, communist governments like the Soviet Union and Mao-era China were characterized by one-party political systems and highly centralized state control of the economy. That’s very different from what today's American democratic-socialist organizations describe as their objective. DSA distinguishes itself from authoritarian socialism and emphasizes democracy as a means and an end.

That doesn't mean everyone who calls themselves "socialist" has the same definition. The word socialism encompasses a very wide political spectrum.

There’s an important distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy. This is where American political discussion can become confusing. Social democracy generally means keeping capitalism but heavily regulating it and providing extensive social programs.

Under social democracy, there are private companies, private property, stock markets, entrepreneurs and capitalism, mingled with policies like universal or heavily subsidized health care, strong worker/labor protections, generous pensions, unemployment benefits, public education and higher taxes to finance social programs.

Countries including Denmark, Sweden and Norway are generally described as social democracies rather than socialist economies. They are extensive welfare states but retain predominantly capitalist economies.

Democratic socialism goes further because many democratic socialists want significant portions of the economy itself to become publicly, cooperatively or worker-owned.

As more individuals identify themselves as democratic socialists, there’s a creeping concern that the US could become democratic socialist. But it’s important to make a distinction between becoming more social-democratic and actually replacing capitalism with democratic socialism.

Historically, the US has incorporated some policies that came from socialist or social-democratic movements. These policies include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, public education, minimum-wage laws, government-funded infrastructure and public assistance programs.

Yet the US remains an overwhelmingly capitalist economy, with privately owned businesses, private investment and markets.

So, it’s entirely possible the US could move further toward social-democratic policies without becoming a socialist country.

The current political movement is nevertheless significant. The 2026 elections show candidates associated with democratic socialism have gained more influence inside parts of the Democratic Party. This isn't merely theoretical, as democratic socialist candidates have won primaries and are campaigning on policies including Medicare for All, universal child care, a higher federal minimum wage and increased taxation of billionaires.

Nonetheless, the movement remains controversial and faces substantial resistance, including among Democrats themselves, who express significant disagreement about how far the Democratic Party should move toward socialism.

A complete transformation to socialism in the US would be extraordinarily difficult because it would require enormous changes to areas like private property law, taxation, corporations, financial markets, health care, employment, banking, investment, federal and state governments and the relationship between government and private enterprise. The political system makes such sweeping changes difficult, as power is divided among the US Congress, presidency, courts and states.

Moreover, even citizens who support policies associated with socialism don't necessarily want socialism itself. Citizens might enthusiastically support Medicare for All, stronger unions and higher taxes on wealthy Americans while still believing private businesses and capitalism should remain. Therefore, policy preferences and ideological labels shouldn't automatically be treated similarly.

Substantial expansion of social-democratic policies in the US is conceivable, as the political system can adopt government programs that substantially modify capitalism. But a wholesale replacement of capitalism with democratic socialism would be a much more profound transformation and would face considerably greater institutional and political barriers.

When evaluating candidates identified as democratic socialists, it’s important to ignore the label and examine the policies they represent. The question must be asked whether the policies are practical and workable in the US Congress or whether they have little chance of being implemented.