Democracy in the United States needs a strong socialist movement to survive.

I thought there was "no such thing" as socialism in the USA.

We must have political party for morons. Here it is. Step right up and join if you have the mental qualifications.

Raising taxes is not the solution. At least they care about workers.

oh, i'm sorry, you're an as*hole who isn't posting on the issue is just taking a cheap shot at a different political party...anyway, the socialist party is okay in the most ideal abstract concept but could never work well in American society.

Oh, sorry. I thought this was where to find the democrats.

best political party the police state has

In theory great. In real life it won't work in a capitalist, monetary society like 21st century America. However, American Socialism is a bit different than European. Anyone interested should study Eugene V. Debs, five time Socialist candidate for president several different time from 1896-1920. He supported ideas that both parties later jumped on. Years before the Great Depression he and the Socialists of his day supported an 8 hour work day, medical benefits, retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, labor unions, and later in his life in the 1920s African-American right. Eugene V. Debs was a union leader on several different railroads and fought the defenseless. I would vote for him today.

Germany,1933-1945. Enough said.

Those who advocate socialism know nothing about economics or the law of supply and demand. Socialism breeds laziness. You are giving your trust to an outside source (government) to take care of you. Why is Europe's growth stagnant? Because of their high taxes and heavy regulations are forcing companies out and/or relocating. Look at Germany - they have a double digit unemployment rate. Their welfare system is a mess. Why has East Asia boomed? Because of the free market society and low government interference. Asians know that hard work and wealth brings prosperity and high standards of living.

When, oh, when will dumb Americans wise up?

Another hope for Americans who are tired of having big business interests dictate the course of our country.

While the idea of socialism looks good on paper, It simply just can't work in a capitalist society. Socialism requires no competition and in America, We need that! With all the technology we have, We would not have the expanding economy we have and all the oppurtunities that are given to us. Socialism also takes away some of our freedoms. We wouldn't be allowed to own private land. I don't know about you, but I would like to own some land to myself. Anyways, back to the idea, Socialism may seem nice and something of a utopian society, but in reality, It just would not work in America.

Socialism, especially Social Democratic Socialism, has done a good job in Scandinavia, especially Sweden. They haven't got half the social problems that America has.

A atrong socialist party in America would be an excellent idea, if only to provide a counter-argument to the ever-similar Democrats and Republicans. Politics needs strong debates based on ideology and the issues at hand, and not the dishing of "dirt" on your opposition candidate. I think the Socialists would provide this. Bigbaby, you seem to continually live up to your name. Your petulant arguments are badly thought out, and in complete avoidance of the facts. The Nazis purported to be under the guise of socialist freedom, but instead were rascist nationalist fascists. One "ist" they weren't was socialist. And anyway, if you go to a list of all US political parties, Nazi parties call themselves Nazis. Not Socialists. Ruby, you keep saying how socialism leads to terror and loss of liberty, but then why haven't you gone after Liberia? A Democratic government which tried to clamp down on dissenting opposition and ending up creating a terrible civil war. If a government is unpopular and tries to hang on to power, the only way to do so is loss of liberties, as the USA is doing now to control dissent in its population. And to counter your argument fully, a popular socialist government was elected into Chile, and no loss of liberties came about. however, when the US endorsed coup took over, it was unpopular for undemocratically unseating the popular government. Terror ensued. It's odd, how most people tend to ignore plain facts that refute their biased "theories".

First of all, a message to new soul.Socialism ignores race.It is contradictory to be a racial seperatist and a socialist at the same time.Racial Separation is something like fascism,the opposite of Socialism.The best thing about the socialist party here,is that it is a counter-balance to the existing capitalist government.More socialist ideas should be added to our Nations standards, such as ignoring race,gender,and religion all three.The controversy over these things leads to war and suffering worldwide.Such as aparthied in South Africa:over race, The bloodshed in the middle east:religion, and the tension and inequality within the U.S.A:both gender and race.These problems all come from a state of mind that considers race gender and religion important.Just this year students in georgia were fighting for an all white prom,thats what Capitalism has to offer us, inequality and intolerance.Work for all the willing!Thats why I'm a socialist.

Do you know what National Socialism means in German? It means Nazi. This is nothing but the American version of Germany's former Nazi party.

Karl Marx hit the nail on the head on several issues, but was so off-target on so many others that he was considered totally outmoded by the thinking left over a quarter of a century ago. Why does his flawed and misapprehending legacy still continue? Admittedly, certain socialistic concepts are useful and exist in our capitalist society to the present day, but a full-blown platform of this state-worship doesn't make much sense in the 21st century, and actually, never did. Socialism, despite its handle, isn't about society as much as it's about the enfranchisement of the state. It's bad enough that the droolers worship the GOP dominated goings-on in DC, and obediently asskiss the military, both of which are uncomfortably chummy dynamics in the minds of true Americans and bona fide patriots: the Socialists take this type of misguided apotheosis of the state to an illogical extreme, but at least they're not hypocritical and self-deluding about it like the so-called "government hating" conservatives.

A very sad world it would be indeed! Vote Libertarian!

we need to watch these people ,oh that right we can see Hillary on C-SPAN

The small time murderers and thieves.

An open-minded, liberal party, which is a tolerant one. Socialism HAS worked in Europe, and they're joining the intellectual Americans in their dislike of Dubya.

This is a party that reflects the values of equality and justice for all, not just for a few select white rich males. The Socialist Party bases its principles upon tolerance and equity and looks to those in power as benevolent guides for our lives. Those who occupy positions of power are morally obligated to provide fair and equitable provisions for all people regardless of socio-economic status. Our federal government provides us with the stability necessary for each of us as individuals to build our own socio-economic foundation (checks and balances). Programs such as Social Security, the WPA, FDIC, the FCC, WIC, the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, affirmative action---all of these programs have given the have-nots of our country equal footing with the haves and those who had been in positions of power and prestige for too long. Government programs have been necessary to provide opportunities for people who wouldn't have had the opportunity to help themselves due to inherent inequalities in our capitalist system. The Socialist Party has never wavered in its goal to see that all Americans have a guaranteed job and income, something that capitalism has yet to inspire people with. Socialism eliminates the fretfulness and anxieties that working people have who live in fear of downsizing or of worrying where their next meal will come from. Government has the responsibility to step in and give those people a safety net with which to cling to. People see capitalism as something that is necessary and that reflects the values of this country (which, for the most part, it does), and given the nature of individuals, some don't care to be told what and how to do things in their lives. That is perfectly fine and understandable. But there are people in our society who see that all is not fine and dandy with our current system of government, where there is unemployment and laissez-faire attitudes towards big business and utter lack of responsibility assumed by people in positions of power who hold the purse strings. Capitalism appeals to the individual who wants to do better for himself, which is great, but at what or whose expense? Capitalism is cynical in its infectious, insidious paean to those who place profit ahead of co-existence with one another. Granted, power is intoxicating, and people in positions of power and privilege are mostly unwilling to step aside and let others have that chance to be successful. But change happens and is inevitable, and when all people are made to feel welcome and accepted by others in this diverse society we live in, the incentive to be part of a team and contribute to the greater good of the society is there. Socialism provides a counterbalance to the rampant capitalism that is espoused by shills such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Re-smug-licans, the Libertarians, big business, and the entrenched powers-that-be.

I would encourage members of this party to read F.A. Hayek's 1945 book, "The Road to Serfdom," it is dedicated to "socialists of all parties" and it explains how well-meaning persons have unwittingly allowed tyranny and a loss of liberty to occur in societies all over the world by following the path of socialism. In some ways, Hayek's work anticipates public choice theory (an development in economics brought about by James Buchanan) to explain how perverse incentives can lead societies awry and put the worst of men in charge. A cursory glance at the history of socialism in the 20th century should provide more than enough documentary evidence to lend weight to what was -- at the time -- theorizing by Hayek about the consequences of socialism and economic planning.