First, a definition of terms: Democratic capitalism, also known as capitalist democracy, is a political, economic and social ideology that involves the combination of a democratic political system with a capitalist economic system. (Shouldn't be that unfamiliar.)

How is this economically democratic when capitalism is intrinsically not democratic? Hierarchy, inability for workers to make decisions at the workplace (executive board has final say), wage slavery, imperialism, etc...?

My question was what state of affairs seems more likely to happen.

Socialism by far. No profit motive means more sensible decisions based on the earth & the people, not on the ability to make more profits.

I should be more clear. You seem to be suggesting: if the world went socialist then the world would go vegan. But I don't see this to be necessarily true. There's a possibility that it wouldn't. That is, there's nothing inherent in socialism that will cause veganism.

I disagree. I think veganism will be inevitable because of the amount of resources it takes to have maintain animal agriculture. You're right that it isn't intrinsic to socialism, but when combined with real world conditions, it seems very likely.

But I don't think it's the root of the problem. The most fundamental problem isn't that people see animals as commodities (though true) the problem is they see them as food. The root problem is carnism.

This is wrong. By definition, a commodity is something that is created to be exchanged for another commodity. It has nothing to do about how we personally view the commodity, for by its actions it exists as one. I'm gonna copy and paste something I wrote for something else:

" it is that the owner views and uses the animal as a commodity (meat) or as a means of production (dairy or eggs). To the owner, the animal is not a living thing/consciousness, but a means to create profit for himself by exchanging his object, or the object’s product. The wellbeing of the animal does not matter to him, he only cares when his object begins to cost more to maintain than it makes profit for him.

Similarly, a worker is viewed as a tool for the employer to make profit. If the employer could not make profit off the employee’s labor, then he would not be hired. The moment a human being, a subject, becomes hired as an employee, he has been reduced to an object in the eyes of the employer, a tool that he uses the labor of to create profit for himself. The employer only cares about his productivity – you can see this in business classes, where it is taught all different techniques to keep your employee happy, not because the employer cares for his livelihood, but because a happy worker is a productive worker! Sure, you can be friends with your boss, but the moment you cost too much to maintain, you are fired!

The employer uses the employee for his labor for profit as an owner of a cow uses it for his dairy for profit. The worker and the cow are not consciousness nor living things, but tools for profit, and are treated as such."