This question is aimed to Americans, but other people are free to answer if you'd like to of course.

Do you think that a Socialist party could ever become a leading party in the USA? Either by replacing one of the two big parties or becoming a third big party in the top. Or do you think that the Democracts and Republicans will always be the two strongest parties?

With Socialism in this sence I am thinking of Euro-Socialism firstmost, something like the Labour Party in the UK or the Socialist Party in France, as two examples.

The United States is already a heavily socialist country.

We can thank old lame legs himself FDR for racing us on down this path.

Not in name but we already have socialism in this country.

I'm not sure how is the Labour Party is much different from the Democrats now.  I mean, Labour is trying to reach further left labor wise... but "New Labour" wasn't particularly socialist.

and honestly, though less socialist isn't the right word...  Blue Labour certaintly is a lot moresocially  conservative then the democrats in a lot of issues.

Labour and the Republicans would get a lot more done legislativly in the US then the Democrats and Republicans do.

I put more of the blame on his raggedy (that lady was butt ass ugly) wife. She's the one who tried to convince him to actually turn dictator. Luckily, he was able to "stand" up to her on that one.

Honestly, I don't think many Americans actually understand what Socialism is.

Socialism is the state-ownership of economic machinery; not a redistributive tax system or the presence of a welfare state. To be fair, redistributive tax systems and welfare states can be part of Socialist systems, but they are not its defining feature.

To call Europe a 'Socialist Continent', like many Americans often do, is to severely miss the point.

Since the 1980s and Old Devil C**t Maggie (at least in the UK), the state has been systematically selling off state owned properties (usually to friends and former classmates of the governing party) for cheap. The 'Socialist' Labour party repealed Clause 4 in their charter in 1994 which was their commitment to nationalisation of key industries.

The Tories have just sold off the Royal Mail, effectively at a loss, and are currently working to undermine the NHS so that it can later be sold off in the name of efficiency.

To answer the OP though; No, I don't think the USA will ever have an honest Socialist party, or even the weak, centre-right parties that we have here. Because culturally, the idea of society having a responsibility to care for those who struggle to care for themselves is not part of the American psyche.

The way 'Obamacare', 'Workfare', taxation etc. are treated in the US demonstrates that. In the UK, the Welfare State grew out of the ravages of the 2nd World War and the ruling classes seeing for themselves the appalling conditions the working classes had to face. America never had that meeting of the classes.

And to clarify; when I use the term 'Americans', I am referring to the average person. I am not casting aspersions on any individuals here, nor am I making any assumptions as to what any individual may believe politically as a result of their nationality.

Excellent answer, this is it. What is called today "socialist" has not much to with it.

Socialism isn't a binary state of affairs. There are degrees of socialism. When the state can regulate the economy as much as it wants and chooses to do so to a very large degree (as in the US), that allows for a great deal of socialism without the state having to claim outright ownership of the means of production. The American government has found this to be a very effective way of socializing things in the US over the past century without spooking the horses by openly appearing socialist. That's how we've end up with an absurd contrivance like Obamacare instead of an honest single-payer system.

I'm sorry badgenome but I completely disagree.

Socialism is where the means of production are held in common. Where the means of production are in private hands, that is Capitalism. And although you're quite right that there are degrees; such as in the UK pre-Thatcher, where some industries were state owned and some private, the minimal amount of control that the US government exerts on its economy in no way qualifies as 'socialist'.

The twin economic theories of capitalism and socialism concern themselves with the ownership of capital, not the management of an economy. (And realistically, who else, other than the state could manage an economy?).

In fact, in modern Western Democracies it is entirely fair to say that private corporations exert more control over government than vice versa (via lobbying, political donations, etc.).

You Sir Know what you re talking about. *insert Applaud Gif*