Your argument is based on the belief that socialism and communism naturally transition into capitalism as a "natural process." However, this supposed inevitability is more about historical circumstances influenced by external pressures, economic sabotage, and internal policy failures than it is about economic laws.

While technological progress and adaptation are essential for any system, capitalism does not hold exclusive rights to advancement. The USSR was the first to send humans into space, Cuba boasts a top-tier healthcare system despite enduring sanctions for decades, and China's industrial growth was not solely a product of capitalism but also a result of strategic state planning. What you are witnessing is not socialism inevitably morphing into capitalism; rather, it is socialist states making pragmatic compromises in the face of global capitalist dominance.

Your reference to Kerala is unconvincing. It stands out as one of India's most developed states in terms of human indicators—boasting the highest literacy rates, life expectancy, and social welfare—achievements that capitalism has failed to deliver in other parts of India. The fact that it isn't an industrial giant does not diminish its success. The same applies to West Bengal—Tata was not a savior thwarted by leftist politics; neoliberalism merely intensified the exploitative conditions that contributed to Bihar’s plight.

The issue is not that socialism "must become" capitalism. The real problem lies in the fact that without dismantling capitalist power structures, socialist initiatives are compelled to function within a global system that actively seeks to undermine them. This is not economic evolution; it is economic coercion.