Old-school socialism is really right down at the roots of American history, at least for New England: concepts of communal property (or at least a strong sense of common property, while still keeping a fair deal of private holdings) and mutual support amongst the religious communities of the early northeast. People supported each other so that they could live as they chose to live (as a group). So the idea of communes and, in the modern incarnation, co-ops and credit unions and such, these things which were the precursors in Europe to political socialism have their place deep down in American history too. We can't have the freedom to do what we wish without also being able to support each other.

The key is that in America there's a stronger sense that "the government" is distinct from "the people." We view the government almost in a way similar to the peoples of kleptocracies like Russia or Ukraine, when we should have the notion that *we* are the government should be better-entrenched in America than in other countries. This leads to the false idea that socialism involves the government taking stuff, when really it's horizontal redistribution, from those who have prospered to those who have not.

Socialism is not foreign to America. In colonial times there were many socialist experiments. They all failed, of course. Nevertheless, socialism (at least most forms of it) is antithetical to individualism, and individualism is much more ingrained in American culture. That is why you see such opposition. For the first 300 years of American history, the political landscape was split between individual anarchists, and classical liberals. It only makes sense that the progressivism of the last 100 years has had a hard time to drastically alter such a landscape (honestly it has been more effective than what one would predict beforehand.)

Not even classical liberals, who postulated the idea of government of the people, actually believed this. Thomas Paine's common sense is likely the precursor to American classical liberalism, and consequently liberal reprsentative government, and even he said that society and government are two distinct entities, the latter being a necessary evil. 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

As a libertarian, I wholeheartingly say, yes it is. Is there a free market in national defense? No. Is national defense paid for with taxation by a government? Yes. Is it socialist, then? Yes. In fact, national defense is the most (and first) socialist market  found in the United States. The political landscape before the mid 1800's was opposed to a national, standing, socialist,  military, and was for voluntary, free-choice, militias. 

Cold war had sucessfully made US citizens(america is a continet) think that socialism means ditactorship. That democracy is not possible on socialism. So, when people say socialism is anti-american, they think that they are refering too socialism.

The problem is: socialism in a big society doesnt work. People on power and their friends will always be the most empowered. Its hard to care about people you have no contact with. In native tribes worked. In small comunities in Israel worked. but ona entire country or even a entire island not. The only way to implement it was breaking down US in small countries to sucessfully implement it. small societies always work best.

Why is fascism an exception? Did people have more freedoms in the U.S.S.R, Communist China, North Korea, etc than they did in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Fascist Japan? Fascism, "socialism", and communism are cut from the same cloth. All are forms of collectivism. The forfeit of one's property rights is also the forfeit of one's other rights, as he/she no longer owns himself/herself and the product of his/her time - property. To tell someone that they don't own the product of their time is no less tyrannical than to tell someone that they cannot marry whomever they wish to marry. It is equivalent, and often interconnected. One's economic freedoms affect one's social freedoms, and vice-verse. 

"Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." 

Socialism is not Anti-American at all. Some of the things the USA most prides itself are from socialism - Military, Police, Fire-departments that help everyone, not just the wealthy, public parks, the National Park System (Grand Canyon etc.) Bridges, Dams, NASA, the Space Program, Emergency Room Care, Freeways, etc.

Why, the entire world goes off the USA's FAA and pilot/air traffic control systems. (Yes, they are nationalized and socialist.)

But unfortunately, many don't understand it. I had a friend I know ask me if 'Obama was a Socialist!' I told him no, why would you think that? Then had to explain to him that the 'socialism' he hates, was the disability and social security benefits that both he and his girlfriend live off of for years.

There are many billionaires and corporations that own much of the media and many people aren't aware enough to realize they are being manipulated to help other billionaires.

Largely because such reforms were necessary. There was a lot of populist/working class rage building up under the surface from the 1890s through the 1930s before the concessions of the New Deal tamed it. Stuff like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_workers_strike_%281934%29 went on all the time because of exploitative owners.

Individualism falls apart as an ideology for those who are made to live their lives as little better than machinery with organs.

Yet it was the conclusions of individualism which brought individuals to prosper in the enlightnement and afterwards, and only collectivism which has reversed the process, since. The opportunity for individuals to have the freedom to act, within the constraints of their rights, has led to prosperity, while the forceful reduction of these rights has led people back to destitution (note: all applications of total socialism: from the U.S.S.R to modern day Venezuela.) Individualism succeeds for these people as well, because it enables them to traverse economic and social strata. 

I just have an "economic perspective" on this as an "economics professor", rather than ideological one.

Yes, Socialism is VERY anti-American, or better say, "American Ideals are very anti-socialist".

There is almost no overlap between the ideals of socialism and American capitalism. Forget that, there is an ongoing contest between the European "Social Capitalism / Democracy" and "American neoclassical Capitalism", that still needs to be resolved.

Europe's ideals are much more humane and practical, with the right balance between the two.
Both socialism and capitalism on the other hand are failed ideals, which just do not work in real life.

American economic system, at its purity, is a total failure, although American Economy has not failed because
- Abundant Natural resources
- Huge emphasis on technology & know-how
- Attraction of colossal brain power
- Democracy (among the common folks)
- Free Market system that is more natural for humans
- Lack of systematic hostility towards immigrants
- Lack of historical detrimental ties
...

However, the system is not obviously working. As an expert on OECD, compared to the OECD Average,

- US spends 2.5x as much on health care but fares 10% worse than the average
- US pre-college system is one of the worst
- US college system is antiquated
- US banking system is beyond antiquated
- US income inequality is among the worst (After Chile and Mexico)
- US public transportation is the worst in OECD
etc etc etc...

What's to blame here. We see clear patterns with Anglo-Saxon Countries in the world. For example, the health care efficiency is worst in English Speaking Countries (Efficiency : Your bang for Buck / Max Bang for Buck), and the common phenomenon in those countries is the highly privatized (and unregulated) medical sector, which obviously doesn't work.

Let me give you an idea. The Health care Outcomes (Life expectancy, Infant Mortality etc) and Health Services are approximately equal across US and Chile. The difference is, however, Chile spends only $1600 per person (ppp) while US spends almost $9000 to achieve the same results!

No, American system doesn't work. Ironically All American ideals are geared towards it. So being an American is synonymous as being not only Anti-Socialist but also Anti-Social Capitalist.