Yes, depending upon their platform and the logical validity of their solutions. Keep in mind that I actually know what socialism IS (as well as what communism is), having studied it. Most Americans don't know, and still exist in a McCarthyist fear.

No, I think people should work to earn what they need, and more successful people shouldn't have to subsidize those who do not want to work as hard.

I would have to say its a firm "maybe" as I'm a big supporter of universal healthcare.

No. Because it is a system in which they that worked hard to gain their wealth are somehow responsible for those that won't. What we need in America is incentive, and for the government to do more in the way of clearing the way to success. Socialism does neither. It assumes the responsibility to keep everybody happy, and yet does not assume the responsibility for either the cost, nor the ethical ramifications of trying to do so. It says, "You can't do it? Don't worry, we'll do it for you." Meanwhile, try to get an MRI in Canada, or simular services. If it was working for them, then why do many Canadians seek good medical care in the U.S.? The following is a quote from Wikipedia, for those of you that don't know what Socialism is: Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production. The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity. A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.

No, I never would.

[WRT the US] I favor a meritocracy (like the Rupublican party used to be about) and I fear that a socialist party (often misunderstood) would go too far in the opposite direction. That being said, even if I did want to vote for a socialist party, I would not. The two-party system being what it is today, a vote for the socialists just becomes a vote for the Republicans (takes a vote away from the Democrats). I think we shoulod reform the American system so that two minority parties, at the end of an election, can combine their votes in order to form a government. That would give people more choices.

I would,socialism works fine in a majority of the countries in the world.It is a good middle road,that in the end meets the needs of all people,not just the fortunate.

I don't assume that all wealthy people are corrupt, or even most of them. They just play within the rules of a game which is unfairly balanced. So, what do you guys think of monopolies? If I corner the market on something, can I charge whatever I want for it? What abot fresh water? Electricity? Telecommunications? That's capitalism, after all. Like the guy in the lifeboat, I got there first so it is all mine.

an extra $7 trillion in debt, thanks to the Republicans. Still, I do not believe that wealth scales to great heights. I believe that beyond a certain amount that wealth should be rechanneled back into social improvement. You seem to have a very myopic winner-take-all attitude. I believe people are basically good, given an opportune environment, and education will improve everyones absolute standard of living, though not relative. You seem to think that people are basically evil free-loaders who are all after a slice of your lucky charms.

If I was American, I would vote for a Green Socialist party.

they're the only ones with any sense.

Socialism has failed every where it has been tried.

No I wouldn't. I believe that history shows that socialism has failed.

Supporting the democratic party is doing this.

No. Please see Steelhamster's list of countries to consider emigration. The U.S. was founded on a capitalistic system and yes, there are problems, but we should address the problems, not the system, IMHO.

We need some definitions here. Just what is socialism? Consider that many large corporations have demonstrated a greater concern for improving/increasing profits than for putting out good products or caring for the environment or having anything that might be called a "social conscience". Consider that multiple governmental agencies exist to monitor and regulate many major corporations, which controls are designed to protect the public. If socialism is freedom from government interference, we'd have no seat belts, air bags, collapsible steering wheels, etc. If freedom from government interference we'd be eating contaminated meats and vegetables, we'd have no building codes to protect us, there'd be no manufacturing standards, no "standards" of any sort. After all, these are all examples of the government telling industry what to do and how to do it. So is a definition of socialism permitting the government to interfere in any area? if so , then we already have a socialist government, and it is supported by all parties. Do you want to limit or expand governmental interference with industry? What about things like farm subsidies? What about Medicare and Social Security? Do we eliminate them or are we willing to acknowledge that these are "socialistic" practices? Are we to take the position that every individual is free to do whatever he/she wants, with no governmental interference? Well, perhaps a little? Or maybe a little more? Where do we stop? What is it you consider socialism?

No. Libertarian, yes. We need less government interference, not more.

No, I would not. Ever.

No.

NO! What the hell?!

Sure. I would consider it. After all we are already there in some respects... I like the Green Party and they seem to embrace certain socialist programs that I would support..

I don't believe that socialism is, in itself, flawed or evil except when it is taken over by government. Our society is rife with aspects of socialism that we are free to enjoy without any major burden or interference. When it becomes controlled by government, however, there is the tendency for the government version to take over our lives and eliminate any competition from the free market, such as social security is moving towards, and the current resistance to privatize it so we can regain control of our own financial futures. Socialism works outside the sphere of government where participation is voluntary and is free of punitive policies: charities and relief societies are good examples, and even lotteries and raffles - but when government takes over absolute control of wealth or any resource, it is always for the good of government and seldom for the good of the citizenry or subjects. No! I would never vote for a socialist political party. It also might be a violation of my sworn oath as a former Marine to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States to do so.

They already have, it is called the Democratic Party.

The short answer is no; not if the socialist didn't disguise his views in political double-talk. Would he get my vote? Maybe, if he wasn't as big a bser as most capitalists.