On June 23, 2026, it was a successful sweep across the Five Boroughs for the three Mamdani backed congressional candidates, two of whom, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, ran explicitly as Democratic-Socialists under the DSA title and with their endorsement. All three of them however, are far-left progressive Democrats who ran in the Democratic primaries with the unified goal of unseating long-serving Democratic incumbents of those districts. Many of them ran on policy positions of universal health and childcare, national rent control, abolishing many forms of immigration enforcement, strengthening union power, challenging Wall Street and large corporations, ending what they refer to as a “genocide” in Gaza, as well as ending all U.S. military and defense aid to Israel, including support for civilian defense systems such as the Iron Dome.
These victories are not simply the result of three successful congressional campaigns. They reflect a broader ideological shift within parts of the Democratic Party, particularly among younger voters, toward a movement that promises to make American society more equal, affordable, and – as its name suggests – more democratic. Many of these goals are understandable, and extremely appealing to a broader audience. The United States, particularly due to the Trump administration’s recent actions, faces a genuine affordability crisis, healthcare remains expensive, and younger Americans increasingly feel that the economy is failing to work for them, with the median age of a first time homebuyer in the U.S. being 40 years old. But acknowledging these problems does not mean accepting every proposed solution.
As democratic-socialism gains greater political influence, the ideology itself deserves greater scrutiny. As a country built on the pillars of democracy and republicanism, we have to ask ourselves: How democratic is democratic-socialism, really?
When defending these ideas, American democratic socialists frequently look across the Atlantic. U.S. aligned nations such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are frequently referenced by notable progressives as examples of what a more “socialist” America could look like, with universal healthcare, heavily subsidized education and childcare, powerful labor unions, extensive social protections and safety nets, and significantly higher levels of government spending – which comes of course, with steeply heightened taxes for all citizens. And by many measures, these Nordic countries are indeed extraordinarily successful. But calling the Nordic model “socialist” overlooks a crucial distinction. These countries have not abolished capitalism; in fact, they rely on it. Private property, privately owned businesses, competitive markets, entrepreneurship, and international trade remain fundamental to their economies.
What makes the Nordic model distinctive is not the abolition of capitalism, but rather its social democracy; a system that largely preserves key traits of a traditional capitalist market economy, while taxing it heavily to finance an expansive welfare state. However, this is where an important distinction needs to be made between the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the individual politicians associated with the movement. While politicians such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and Zohran Mamdani have advocated policies resembling aspects of Nordic social democracy, the DSA itself explicitly envisions moving beyond capitalism. Advocating for a stronger welfare state within a capitalist economy is not necessarily the same as advocating for an entirely different economic system. This distinction is crucial when considering what an expanded social safety net could actually look like in the United States. If many of the policies Americans most admire about Scandinavia can exist without abolishing capitalism, then what exactly does democratic socialism add?
Of course, it’s clear to see that democratic socialists are not advocating for authoritarian, one-party governments historically associated with communist states. They believe in elections, representative government, and bringing about change through the democratic process. And while many prominent democratic-socialist politicians advocate reforms that can operate within capitalism, the DSA’s broader vision goes further, calling for greater democratic ownership and control over the economy itself. Supporters argue that this would give ordinary workers and communities more power over economic decisions, rather than leaving that power concentrated among corporations and wealthy individuals. But just because a policy is passed democratically, it does not necessarily mean that it gives people more freedom or control over their own lives. There is a difference between giving people more of a voice in government and giving government more of a voice in people’s lives.
This raises an important question about how far democratic control over the economy should extend. As more decisions over property, businesses, wages, housing, and other parts of the economy are proposed to be shifted from individuals to the government or collective institutions and organizations, that distinction becomes increasingly important. It is a question that many European countries have wrestled with over the past decades, and one that we as Americans must start asking ourselves: At what point does expanding democratic control over the economy begin to limit and restrict the granted freedoms of the private individuals and businesses living and operating within it? How can we regulate our markets and businesses appropriately, while also still creating an environment with an incentive to innovate, build, and create?
And perhaps nowhere are these questions becoming more consequential than within the Democratic Party itself. Increased clashes between established, more moderate democrats, and younger, more trendy socialist ones, have led to a ‘civil war’ for Democrats; fighting over which side will ultimately get to represent the party on a national level in the years to come. The more far-left, progressive side, sees Mayor Mamdani, AOC, and the socialist movement as the future of the Democratic party, with younger, more populist, confrontational candidates who are more willing to take on large corporations and the wealthy. Meanwhile, the more traditional, centrist wing worries that moving too far left could alienate moderates and swing-voters, and make Democrats overall less competitive nationally. Many centrist Democrats recognize that the word “socialism” remains controversial among American voters, and want the party to focus more on appealing to the general population and swing-voters, in preparation for the 2026 mid-term elections, as well as the 2028 presidential election. But this growing divide raises a deeper question about the Democratic Party’s identity. Is the party moving toward the DSA’s broader anti-capitalist vision, or are its voters simply demanding more aggressive economic reforms within the existing system? The distinction, once again, matters. Because supporting a candidate who promises affordable housing, universal healthcare, or higher taxes on the wealthy does not necessarily mean supporting the replacement of capitalism. Yet, as democratic-socialist politicians gain greater influence within the party, the relationship between their immediate policy proposals and the movement’s longer-term ideological goals deserves greater scrutiny.
When we look at the three major congressional primary races that recently happened in NYC, it’s clear that those three races were not just about a few incumbents losing. They demonstrated the growing influence of the insurgent left, and its ability to challenge established, well-funded Democrats within their own party. But they also raised and important question: Are these victories evidence of a growing commitment to socialism itself, or of voters increasingly frustrated with the Democratic establishment and demanding more aggressive economic and market reforms, within our current system?
The question facing Democrats, then, is not whether the frustrations fueling this new movement are legitimate, but what the party chooses to do about them. Democrats can pursue a stronger social safety net, address affordability, and confront failures within the current economic system without necessarily embracing socialism. The Nordic countries, and many other Western nations, have demonstrated globally that these goals do not have to come at the expense of a competitive, incentive based market economy. And while many democratic-socialist politicians advocate policies that resemble aspects of these systems, the DSA’s broader anti-capitalist vision raises a different set of questions about the future of private enterprise, economic freedom, and the role of government.
Ultimately, the Democratic Party must confront not only what policies it wants to pursue, but what economic and political philosophy it wants those policies to represent and reflect. If the June 23 primaries showed us anything, it is that the battle over the future of the Democratic Party is no longer approaching. It has already begun.
Be First to Comment