In his 1992 book “The End of History”, Frank Fukuyama argued that history was essentially over, Western Capitalism had won. That system had proven itself to be vastly superior to the Socialist alternative.
Frank and I had our offices next to each other, when we were both at Rand. I remember him as a quiet, but very serious thinker that followed the logic of his arguments to the bitter end. Declaring the West a winner in the competition of economic and political systems and proclaiming the end of Socialism was not something he would do lightly. It is therefore not surprising that his book received a lot of attention.
The opposite of Socialism is not Capitalism but rather: Individualism. In a socialist system society, or those who claim to be acting on behalf of society as a whole, make decisions about production and distribution of goods and services. Individualism is the opposite: decisions are made by individuals who bear the consequences of their actions. The genius of Adam Smith and the other early economists was to recognize, that the sum total of all these individual decisions would result in the best possible outcome not just for the individuals, but for society as a whole.
So, while Individualism has expanded and lead to prosperity for ever larger segments of the world population, Socialism has fought a determined rearguard action. European governments have a long tradition of finding ever more new ways and excuses for providing “free” (i.e. paid for by others) goods and services to its voting clientele. The political left in the US is trying to also adopt this system. Bernie Sanders who wants to provide free healthcare, Zohran Mamdani who wants to provide free public transport and open city run grocery stores in the neighbourhoods of New York, are only two examples of self proclaimed “Democratic Socialists” in the land of the free.
This leftist fringe has probably only limited influence on actual policy, other than making it difficult for more centrist Democrats to win elections. More dangerous, in my opinion, are the socialist-etatist tendencies in the current Trump administration. Comrade Donald has no compunction substituting his own judgement for that to the individuals actually charged with running companies and other institutions. De-facto nationalizing US steel, taking a participation in large chip companies to the point of actually acquiring a stake in Intel, placing Universities and law firms under government supervision and, of course, the entire tariff fetichism are all actions that a true socialist economic planer would love to take. Comraded Donald may be convinced he is acting in the interest of society as a whole by directing how goods are produced and distributed. In this way he is only one of the latest crop of economic planners and directors that controlled the economies of the former socialist states and numerous current ones.
Therefore: Sorry Frank! I have some difficulty sharing your optimism.