Whoa, whoa, slow down people! Itachi2641747 just asked how and I provided an answer (albeit very simplified). I know MOST countries in Europe have must stronger nationalized systems (be it healthcare, welfare, etc), AND they also have higher taxes. Which by definition is closer to socialism than the United States.
All I was trying to say is that hypothetically, it is possible. And to Itachi2641747, sadly to say it WOULD be allowed. The government doesn't limit itself (at least the legislative part doesn't). In the United States, we already have nationwide welfare (for low-socioeconomic popualation), and our president-elect, Sen. Obama, is going to provide nationwide health care (how, I don't know since the government is ALREADY broke). I feel that the reason people feel that the US is rapidly progressing towards socialism is because we DON'T have increased taxes. Essentially, based on our sliding scale, anyone making more than $250,000 is paying 39% of the income in federal tax. Thus, the "rich" people feel that they're paying for the "oor"; and why should they do that? Anyway, that's all that I was saying. I supposed if taxes were to increase in the United States (highly improbable) the "rich" people won't feel the divide as much, since everyone will be contributing more for the nation as a whole.
The American people have the right to overthrow a corrupt or unagreeable government, as it is stated in the BoR and Constit. It wouldn't be for socialism, it would be for the "old ways".
It is true, as currently interpreted in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the American populace does have the right to "overthrow" a corrupt government by voting or by impeachment of people. But wasn't it just a few short years ago that the American populace had a right to privacy? Then all of a sudden, due to a national emergency, the Patriot Act was instated, and overnight every single American lost their right to privacy?
All I'm saying is once again, it's HIGHLY improbable, but if the right events happen, the American populace could be swayed to vote for a number of government changes, results in a more "socialistic" government. That's all.
For what it's worth, I'm ALL for capitalism. I just like to play the devil's advocate, since it helps me to learn more about the other side and bolster my current standing view (sometimes even enough so to change them).
As far as I can tell, neither pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism works well. There has to be some sort of mix for the economy to work well, because both are ideals.
In the ideal Free Market, there would be no regulation of business whatsoever. However, this leads to trusts forming and a lack of competition, which defeats the purpose of capitalism. It could also lead to extreme wealth-hording and greed, at which point a revolution will take place, and socialism will be attempted by the people. (Look what happened to Czar Nicholas II...One of the wealthiest men in history, left his country in shambles, and the people revolted)
In the ideal Socialist society, the government would mandate business and trade, and other thing such as welfare, healthcare, and education. Yet, no society is self-sustaining, and a mix of capitalism is required to keep the economy moving.
Look, we lost some privacy, but many people were for it! I see it this way, if we keep it balanced between Russia and Israel, we can stay safe.
P.S. Devil's advocate can be fun, but it is effectivly being a concubine(no offence), and makes it so you can stay in the grey zone. As for converting opinions, that works face to face, but people like to act extreme when ther are anonymus.
To clear the air, I'll state now that I think the best option is what Zootsuit_riot said:
There has to be some sort of mix for the economy to work well, because both are ideals
No need for me to be "extreme" since things are anonymous. To refresh, I was just posting some hypotheticals and generalizations on how socialism could occur in the United States, that is all.
Let's face it, socialism is no longer a potent force in politics anymore after communism. Although remnants of it still persist, in nations like America or the UK, it is no longer the dynamic force it was. If you ask me, it's been supplanted by other ideologies not necessarily political, such as environmentalism.
True, but there are many more environmentalists who are not communists.
And should be. A right winger environmentalist doesn't make too much sense. That is unless they are unaware of the consumerist culture capitalism has built.
It could also lead to extreme wealth-hording and greed, at which point a revolution will take place, and socialism will be attempted by the people. (Look what happened to Czar Nicholas II...One of the wealthiest men in history, left his country in shambles, and the people revolted)
The 1917 revolution had many many other factors aside from inequality of wealth. The disastrous first world war, the influence of rasputin, the police state, witte's economic policy, stolypin's attempts at agrarian reform, the octiber manifesto. You cannot oversimplify a situation that was the result of not onlly the short to mid term reasons i mentioned but 300 years of Romanov rule created many other problems. The weakness of Tsar Nicholas II was certainly a major factor, but it is not enough to say he was very wealthy and very greedy, and most of russia was very poor therefore there will be socialist revolution.
