In many great nations like Great Britain, Ireland, and even our next door neighbor Canada there is a socialist type of government, the problem with it coming to the US is most Americans have been brainwashed by the media to believe that Socialism is the same as communism and that is just not true, in socialism freedom and equality is practiced, in communism there is extreme money equality, Adam Smith is the guy to blame for the terrible debt we are in. Socialism is sort of the middle between Communism and Capitalism. If our society was not so ignorant this could be next big thing http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-capitalism/
The main thing is most of the US education system has fallen after the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
As Marx showed 150 years ago, capitalism doesn't work. Workers aren't paid the full value of what they produce, that's where the capitalists' profits come from, and capitalists can't spend all the profits they get, otherwise they'd have no money to use to get the investment income that they live on, so they'd have to join the working class and actually work for a living. So consumers would never have enough money to buy all that the economy produces, and the economy would be in a permanent depression. But the capitalists lend workers the very money they won't give them for working, so they can keep spending, and so the capitalists can live off of the interest the workers have to pay them. But periodically, the workers get so deep in debt that the capitalists stop lending because they get afraid the workers won't be able to pay them back, and that's when we have economic crashes, like in 1929 and 2008. Liberal policies can only make the crashes less frequent, not eliminate them. A socialist economy could work exactly like a capitalist economy except that we would all collectively own the capital that creates investment income, through a truly democratic government with direct democracy, which would be nothing more than all of us collectively making decisions instead of letting unaccountable politicians do it. The only difference would be that the same people who make investment decisions now, who are paid based partly on how much money they already have, would do it as a job, like any other job, so would be paid solely based on how good a job they do, like any other job. So that source of snowballing wealth that creates economic inequality would be eliminated. But workers would still be paid unequally based on how much they work and how valuable their work is. (Most people have a misconception that under socialism workers would be paid equally.) On top of that, everyone would get an equal unearned guaranteed income from society's collective investment income. As automation proceeds, businesses' labor costs would decrease, so there would be greater profits for everyone to share. So people would get a greater and greater guaranteed income, and would need to work less and less. In the developed world, currently that could probably be around $18,000 US for every adult, more than enough for all necessities because people would be debt-free. And at the typical rate of automation for the past 150 years, that would keep doubling every 30 years. By spreading technical know-how to the developing world without capitalist strings attached (debt), we could have the developing world rapidly catch up to the developed world, in a matter of a decade or 2.
Socialism trys to make people equal. I'm sorry, but the truth is that humans were not meant to be equal. There will always be people who are smarter, stronger, pretty, than others. We are not the same and will never be. Are differences make it so that we can not be equal. If we decided to all be equal 20 years ago half of the things sitting in your home wouldn't exist. Economic competition is the biggest contributor to innovation.
Socialism is a common system used with many of our great allies and has never caused any horrible evil out breaks. People don't know the difference between socialism and communism which is the main problem here. A few countries that are striving that have a socialized government include Denmark, Canada, Finland, Norway, and New Zealand who are all becoming greater and greater as all. With the right structure it can do great.
Everyone looks at socialism like we are talking about letting dictators take over the world. The countries with the highest standards of living on earth are the nordic countries, and they all follow a Democratic Socialist Model allowing for there people to live happily for there lives without fear of losing there jobs and starving or one of there family members not having health care or education
Socialism would give everyone the access to their basic needs, we already have socialist education where every kid can go to school, obamacare will bring free healthcare to people who usually can not afford it. Socialist economics such as the occupy cooperative bring money to people who need it, so yes.
Socialism should be removed due to the terms "equal." If There was a street sweeper, in a foreign country, to create equality, would you like to be that person? Or paying for other people to ride a bus that you don't? Or working hard, getting a great job in life, and being forced to give you money to the people to didn't work for it?
Socialism may work in small-populated countries such as Sweden, an even so, Entrepreneurs are treated like pigs. The founder of IKEA made several comments to Forbes magazine on how he is viewed critically by others. Wealth distribution is a joke, most of the statistics of Sweden's claim of having the highest standard of living came from wealth distribution and still, poverty rate in Sweden is like a released balloon. Socialism on a large scale such as the US Government would form a nanny or a police state. This is what the constitution is for, to avoid this.
It is possible to be capitalist and still being able to have socialist features. Here in the U.K we do have free education, healthcare and multiple services that are socialist, yet still run a capitalist country. This question specifically demands that it would be socialist, and for a country like America, I don't think they need to. Socialism may help more people, but Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Why America, when you've fought so hard to be in a country actually so free compared to the rest of the world. Right now you can go out and buy a car, a a pair of scissors and a dog, invest in shares, start a small business and a disco, and celebrate. Why would you take that away because some people don't suffer? Capitalism, done right, with people knowing how to feed money back into the Government generates income, and take away the possible greed, you've got a system which is beneficial for both ways. Throw in free education, healthcare, social security funded by money generated from capitalism, and you've pretty much got a system which works perfectly. So why go overboard and curb freedom, when you can have money, freedom, yet still help people. America doesn't need socialism, just a tiny, minute shift to the left.
Capitalism created civilization. The profit motive causes otherwise lazy, unenthusiastic people to create, innovate and expand on ideas. Socialism is a bland, lifeless world where you are a slave to everyone else. Your work is your own. Your money is your own. You can't make a deplorable crime(theft) into a virtuous action.
Socialism is just a lower stage of communism. That's absurd to even consider America as a socialist country. The USA are the champions of democracy, individuality, and free enterprise! A socialist system would destroy and corrupt everything our Founding Father's risked their lives for and ancestors fought to preserve all these centuries. There are few socialist governments that have prospered. We are a super power nation, why ruin what is perfected?
To those who point to our European neighbors that use a socialistic model as an example of what should be, I first invite you to look at the position those countries are in. Ireland, France, and in fact most of Europe is in economic disarray. The only reason the euro has not completely collapsed is because Germany has single-handedly propped it up over the past few years. If we look at Germany, they by far follow the closest to the capitalistic model.
Socialism takes away the same incentives that capitalism creates. Of course capitalism will create an income gap, that is a direct result of having incentive to better ones position.
No, socialism should not be the system of the U.S. Government because there should be a mixed economy. Socialism is too far to the left on the political spectrum. We cannot make everyone's salary the same well. If everyone's salary was the same, then the economy, as a whole, would suffer.