ABOLISH CAPITALISM? WORK WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND MODERATES by Kevin McGuire - August 2026

The following talking points are my opinion only. Opposing views are welcome.

Abolish capitalism?

The American Left must persuade the rest of us that capitalism can truly be replaced. Has it been considered that capitalism’s collapse may not be imminent? This “collapse” cannot rest on wishful thinking. How, exactly, would capitalism disappear? Should we discard the entire system and replace it with one that no one in DSA can clearly articulate or fully explain? The Bible says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” So what is their vision?

Conservatives have asked me, “How far are you willing to take your politics?” The implication is that the endpoint is communism. My answer is: as far as democracy takes us, reflecting the will of the people. I doubt that “real existing socialism” in the Soviet model is a real choice for democratic-minded people. Its failure was evident by 1991 and even way before then. 

In my view, Social democracy is the clearest message. It expresses the need for reform and offers a practical path forward. Its’ vision is clear, and its reform needs to continue and never just be an end in itself.  The two words go hand in hand - social change that convinces people democracy can serve them, and democracy itself as the means of achieving that change.

As German Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein said, “The movement is everything.” But “we, the people” must strengthen, not weaken, the integrity of our democracy. Whether we already have “real democracy” as some have told me we don’t have, is beside the point; the real question is our path forward. Can we imagine democracy clearly enough to make it real within civil society?   The answer to this question is YES, we can.  

The years from 2016 to 2026 may be remembered as DSA’s “marginal” moment, as John Nichols and others write the history and as non-socialists lead the push for necessary reforms in 2028. This has happened before under FDR. Could we have gone further than FDR’s programs? Yes, absolutely. And if we choose to work within the Democratic Party, we can show what going beyond limited reforms might look like.

Work within the Democratic Party ?

The other issue is whether to work within the Democratic Party. Not because the party is especially good—it is not great —but because it is currently the default vehicle for defeating MAGA in 2026 and 2028. Not the Greens, not the Libertarians, and not the Forward Party. Democratic Party candidates will be on the ballot, and voters will likely choose them. We all know this. Can the party become a reform vehicle for the working and middle classes? That depends on our collective efforts, though this view currently appears to be a minority position within the American Left.

What we really see are two different DSA’s: a Mayor Zohran Mamdani-aligned faction that seeks to run candidates on the Democratic Party ballot line, and Marxist cadres organized through their own caucuses seeking eventually a “new working-class party.”  This conflict is not nationwide; it varies by locality. The former practices social democracy, while the latter often falls into sectarianism that fails to unite people or produce constructive action toward meaningful goals.

We may have to rely on non-socialists to deliver the reforms we need in 2026 and 2028.  They may, like FDR, intend on saving capitalism from itself. If so, is that such a bad outcome, provided we continue working within the Democratic Party and press for more complete reforms?

Is there a serious reform agenda?  For example, Supreme Court expansion to 15 justices paired with term limits (14 to 18 years), overturning Citizens United (big money in politics) and Dobbs (a woman's right to choose?);  banking reform (backed by the federal government) for working-and middle-class people;  a Green New Deal centered on regenerative and alternative energy;  a sane foreign policy that addresses war and conflict, the roles of  NATO and the United Nations; a stronger economic safety net, relief from the high cost of living;  comprehensive health care reform that meets people’s needs regardless of age;  expanded civil rights for women and all people;  and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act as the law governing the right to organize in the workplace?   Non-socialists will have their work cut out for them. The blueprint for this work must originate locally as trust must be earned.   The “sewer socialists” of the 1930’s started this trend.  While it carried itself out with huge success, the movement lost steam and abruptly ended. The idea was that smaller office victories could then advance to larger ones.  This model could also play itself out in the 21^st century. 

We need to radically shift our priorities away from the military and the billionaire class. It must be a “We the people” moment. And who will pay for these reforms? “We the people,” according to our means.

Ultimately, we hope to affirm the dignity and self-worth of every person in our nation, regardless of age, race, creed, gender identity, or economic class, through a more humane, enlightened, and egalitarian society. And hope depends on events. Who makes events happen? “We, the people.”

The Moderates

Who are Moderates?  I am sure we have all run into them. They tend to be self-identified as non-political and may or may not be pro-corporate. They are folks who genuinely don’t trust ideas, not to say they don’t have any themselves. Some have no political moorings, while others do.    Polling suggests that independents take up much of this space.  In fact, the Forward Party is counting on this group. But, if you asked the Forward Party, they don’t expect to provide any needed reforms as a platform.   Rather, they prefer their candidates not to accept extreme positions and to provide stances on issues they need to win their own campaigns. In some instances, the Forwards will endorse candidates from one party in lieu of sponsoring their own Forward Party candidate.     

Questions Moderates might ask: who is really in touch with the voters?  So, where could moderates go? They may very well drift into the “third party zone,” but most of the discussion there is casting a protest vote of sorts.

Like the Libertarians, at their convention two years back.  Who could not admire their passion, rightly or wrongly, when it came to the question of endorsing Trump for president in 2024?  Trump attempted to mock them with the parting comment, “good luck with your 3 percent of the vote.”  The candidate who won the nomination retorted, “you have this wrong, we are probably at 2 percent of the national vote.”  It is this comment; you think that helped put the candidate over the top for the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party.   The libertarians here show tremendous passion and principle.

Protest votes are fine, but as we know, it won’t bring home the bacon.  How could the libertarians channel this towards some center-right party initiative?   Libertarians are not moderate and stand outside the reach of most independents.  Their initiatives, while heavy on principles, lack serious inclusiveness for those with little means.

Regarding the Greens, the perception here is that Democrats carry with them the Green agenda. Therefore, why bother voting for Greens?  Greens must make the case that this perception is not real, coupled with the reality that the Greens can capture a significant vote to elect representatives to congress. To this date, they have failed to do so.   One option for the Greens is to become a caucus within the Dem Party.

So, in the end, moderates are left with choices without their own party. Economically, they could benefit from social democratic programs, and this is where we are in the game.  Regarding capitalism, we can likely count on moderates to want more, not less capitalism.  As far as reforms go, what working class reforms have MAGA engaged in, besides tariffs, and higher costs of living?   

To recapture the white house and congress, I would suggest a political agenda heavy on economic reforms and democracy which reaches out to working and middle-class moderates.   This could look like a 21^st Century Populist Front of the 1930’s.   

Like Biden in 2020, we must close ranks so that our presidential nominee can win.  I don’t know who fits that bill right now.  That moderate Dem president will have their already made agenda as a new president, while the new Dem Congress, both the House and Senate,  will be more attune to the movement, who can then push the newly elected Dem president for reforms.

This is our only hope!