But only within the practical limitations of the economy. There is not room for everyone to succeed all the time, and those who fall upon misfortune should not endure pitilessness merely in the name of "freedom." While there is hardly a dichotomy between liberty and food, or liberty and security, the definition of liberty that allows one man to hoard his food and deprive it to all others is just as odious as the definition of liberty that lets you break out the shotgun and have a go at pedestrians.

No. Capital America is anti socialism though. Socialism is not as bad as Americans think it is.

America has historically been a country run by rich middle aged white men who will do whatever it takes to ensure the self interests of rich white men are maintained. Rich white men have successfully used their power and influence to spread propaganda that Socialism/Communism is bad and Capitalism is good. European nations have been designed to distribute wealth through taxation, improve living standards(minimum wage, Universal Health care, Universal Education, etc) and provide equal opportunity for all people regardless of their gender and ethnicity.

Socialism is anti-fairness and anti-moral when it becomes a tool of the state to plunder it's citizens. Socialism in itself is fine as long as it is between consenting parties.

Heck, if you want to live under communism in this country I say you have the right to do so but to make it or socialism as a public policy is definitely Anti-American.

Socialism goes against the very thing that the founding fathers wanted so yes it is very un-American

Of course people should be free to believe what they wish, but that freedom ends when you're forcing your beliefs upon others, which is the cornerstone of any statist ideology.

That doesn't work for me. I understand the defence of the US population from foreign invaders could be seen as socialist or protecting society but then the military can also be used in aggressive ways that can de-stabilise the world and actually be a cause of damage to that society. Also those who fight in the military you could say are potentially sacrificed  so not good for their place in society (i.e. dead).

Also the military command structure is about very powerful people at the top and bullet fodder at the bottom not really designed around socialist principles of shared responsibility or common ownership etc. Not that I would ever suggest that you could have a military force managed by socialist principles.

There is this comment on the wiki page;

This article is about socialism as an economic system and political philosophy. For socialism specifically defined as a stage of development in Marxist theory, see Socialism (Marxism). For the concept where the state promotes the social and economic well-being of its citizens sometimes mistaken with socialism, see Welfare state.

As a british person my views are everyone should be entitled to equal health care, education, justice and other essential services as the ideal. However I believe totally in capitalism and that people who work hard, are inventive, highly skilled, enterprising etc should be rewarded.  The only exclusions clearly are violent criminals who by their actions become in my view sub-human and obviously should not have many of the same rights. Their freedoms should be severely limited too.

I doubt most people could even properly explain what "socialism" actually is. Or "communism" etc.

In practice, the term is being used so inconsistently, arbitrarily and wrong that most people think that it's about the same as "communism". And even if they knew absolutely nothing about communism, they'd know that "capitalism" is good, "communism" is evil, so the same must apply for "socialism".

But these words have little real world relevance. Even America has never been a true capitalism, just like there was never a country that actually had true communism.

Hey bonzobanana, the 1930s called - they want their ideology back...

*SCNR*

This is untrue though. The lives of the poor have been bettered also. This has been true steadily since the late 18th century. If you compare mercantilism (the equivalent of today's keynesianism, but protectionist) you notice that the poor were not only affected by the rich "hording", but also by the limitations the rich placed on them. After the transition to a more free-market (albeit not entirely free) the standards of living of the poor became better. Yes, there is a business cycle with depressions from time to time, but that is true of any economy. Again, compare practiced socialist countries with, say, Hong Kong, Singapore, 19th century U.S, etc, etc and you notice that the standards of living just don't compare. 

There is not room for everyone to succeed all the time, 

This sentence is the crucial sentence. There is NEVER room for everyone to succeed all the time, not because of free-markets or the rich hoarding wealth, but because of scarcity. How do we reduce scarcity? By production, which is practically why destitution is eliminated in every single moderately free economy in the world. Free-markets (or for some mostly free-markets with government influencing externalities - I don't believe in this, but some do) are the only means by which an economy can grow quickly enough to meet such a demand of having everyone succeed.