Why USA people hate SOCIALISM?

it has a lot to do with our history and constitution. but I will say, in America there's a lot more economic opportunities and chances for upward mobility, and our prices are also very cheap

Its messaging.

Im an american but there is a concentrated effort to paint government as useless and inept. It largely steeped in the culture of big business and their desire to operate unchecked.

People, regardless of origin, really arent much different from one another... whether its europeans or americans. There is just a much larger, better funded, campaign behind this messaging that occurs in the US.

It plays on natural human fears and emotions and has been scientifically tailored to such perfection that frankly, you gotta respect it.

If the same sort of messaging had the level of backing and sheer funding, but was targeted at european countries. I think the results would be similar. Its just a super efficient and well oiled propaganda machine at work.

@themajormayor: I don't know how the law is in those countries, but in Europe, no King or monarch has any real power

Dissagree with the state/private dichotomy. Private ownership is inherently linked to the state. Usufruct rights (which worker cooperatives are based off of) are more natural and socialist. You don't need a state to enforce occupancy.

Private property, by definition, simply means not owned by government. That governments generally enforce property rights has no bearing on whether or not worker-owned firms are owned by government; they are not, so they are privately owned.

Without a powerful enough gov't, shit tends to fall apart, which explains why anarchist societies generally don't exist - and I'm sure that you are going to talk out of your ass on this one, but no one gives a shit, so hold the hot air, please.

Private property is a state entitlement. I didn't say private property was owned by the state, rather that it is enforced by the state. Worker coperatives unlike capitalist enterprises, don't depend on the state, to keep a power structure that benifits a minority owner elite at the expense of the majority.

Private property simply means property that is not owned by the state. Property is simply a social sanctioning of belonging. It is often is enforced by the government, but that is independent of definition.

Private property grants the owner or owners exclusivity outside occupancy and use, so its not just property that's not owned by the state. Usufructuary rights do not depend on private ownership.

Property ownership in general allows for that under the owner's discretion.

That said, the definition is quite strictly property that is not owned by the government. If you feel like being an illiterate shit, feel free to continue, but you shall talk to yourself.

Your definition is wrong and non-historic.

Plain common ownership must be private property too by your silly definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership

It isn't "my" definition; it is the only real definition it has - property that is not government owned; anything else is tacked on by you, and your hesitance to acknowledge such is a strong indicator that on top of being illiterate, you are obstinately daft, and conversation with you is a sheer waste of time.

Good debaters learn how to lose, and not resort to insults.

I am not in this to win. Otherwise, I'd keep arguing with you, pal. Feel free to pick up a book every once in a while so you learn what words mean before you use them.

Because anti-Soviet propaganda.

And unbridled socialism (i.e. spending well beyond the means of the country) is bad.

So, Socialism is good while capitalism is bad in usa

soooo the US is a socialist country now then?

Can an american tell me how many money do you pay monthly to be in a good college/university?

Because those arent collage at all in USA

Scholarship I guess?

Why do people think healthcare, education, etc. is "free" in a socialist state? All you are doing is forking over a hefty amount of your tax money to the government and letting bureaucrats decide what you need or don't need rather than having the freedom to make those choices for yourself.

I agree with first part re: taxes.

But why do you think that bureaucrats decide medical care in single payer systems (socialist health)? Also, I think you'll find that many socialist systems have fewer restrictions/more freedom of choice than private insurance funded systems.

It's more fascist than socialist. But fiscal liberalism isn't synonymous with socialism.

Just the name.

They got Social Security, Medicare, Farm subsidies, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and many other programs.

If they really hated it, they would do away with those programs entirely.

It is simply the word "Socialism" that makes the vein buldge in their forhead, Maybe if they called it something like "Patriotic American Aid Act" then more would be all for it.

It varies widely.

I paid $66 a semester after scholarships, but that was using an in-state school at that time (which would have run about $4,500 a semester at the time. In the same time period, out of state tuition run my friends anywhere from $26,000 a year to $32,000 a year.

I've since learned that the same school has raised their rates to $25,000 a year for in-state tuition. Likewise, my coworker's son will be attending a private university that runs $65,000 a year.

The United States already had tons of socialist practices, the problem is all these practices did is make people want MORE. It is never enough for those who feed off government, they always want more. They would suck it dry if they could then blame it when it cannot provide any longer. We already had free education and healthcare for those in need of it yet you liberals want MORE...and you want to steal from the rich to get it. What happens when all the rich are gone? When you rape them so bad that the next guy coming in says "why bother?" Who is going to hire that company to build a yacht? Who is going to pay a local painting company $20k for painting that mansion? Who is going to hire the builder to build that $5 million home that will keep people employed for a year? Who is going to give you a job working for their corporation? People with money make the economy move...you NEED them. You are just too much of a simpleton to know it.

Medicaid=FREE healthcare for those who cannot afford it. Medicaid has been around since 1965. I was a paramedic for 8 years, when we ran calls in urban housing guess how their bill was paid? Medicaid. This was healthcare for those who could not afford it.

Education: FREE. My own daughter did not have to pay for community college, not a dime. Government programs through financial aid covered it ALL for her. I had a job but just did not make a lot of money so we qualified for this. I did not even have to be dirt poor. The problem in America is we have tons of poor who would never know this because they don't give a shit about getting off their ass and going to college. Why should they when they live for free? If they got an education and a job the government will stop giving them money, food stamps, and a place to live. Why do that? Where is the incentive?

how can they hate socialism?

do they not pay into medicare, roads and infrastructure, social security, business subsidies, farming subsidies and the dozens of other socialist policies that we have had for decades?

if you hate socialism you literally do not know how the reality you live in works.