What is Socialism, it's a way to bankrupt and destroy a country.

So what's the difference to capitalism then? =P

Socialist atheism is one big giant gay bomb. 

The idea the workers being the owners of the "system" but, at the same time, being forbidden to have private property are just uncompatible. Socialism is basically an idea that never works.

tag

Define "private property." What socialists mean when we say "private property" is probably different from what you're thinking. You occupying and preventing people from using the same house as you, for example, is not private property. You possess the house, regardless of whether or not you have property in it. If you, instead, own a system of apartment buildings -- all protected through tax money stolen by the state, pay laborers less than the value they produce for you, and charge renters more than the costs of maintaining the apartment complexes + a living income for yourself, then that is private property. You're using the state's subsidized protections to exploit other people with your absolutely state granted right to abuse. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post. Private property is all three of the following: usus (right to use), fructus (right to profit), and abusus (right to abuse.) Socialists have no problem with people occupying and using a fixed property or profiting off of the natural wealth it produces, what we have problem with is when they abuse this property without paying the full costs, whether they be its protection, the effects of destroying the land for future generations, etc. Why should the rest of society subsidize your property ownership without our consent? 

To frame it as if private property is something that isn't begotten by violence (I recommend reading the Wikipedia for enclosure to see how violent it is) is to frame the debate for your ends. One merely has to ask, which forms of property would remain extant in the absence of state violence? Certainly not the right to abuse, or at least not absolutely without conditions. Most of the desirable features of private property could be retained through usufruct norms, socially determined by you and your peers in free contracts. 

Is it "red commie scum"?

I live in Colombia where about 5 million venezuelans have fled to, and Its honestly very depressing when i go out and find venezuelan families asking for money in the streets, (yesterday i saw a pregnant woman with two kids next to her).

Let me tell you, I live in a socialist country and it's an unstable mess here. I'm basically wondering every day why I even go to work when the state would just easily steal money from hard workers and give it to my lazy ass. I think I may be doing socialism wrong.

Germany is not a socialist country. It's more like socio-political ordoliberalism with a strong focus on welfare capitalism. A socialist country likely wouldn't have billionaires while the average salary is 47000 USD. 

Here are some easy means to tell if a country is organized according to socialist principles: 

1. Are most associated workplaces managed democratically? If so, are profits shared among the workforce or do they disproportionately go to stock-holders or proprietors? If either of these are no, then the country is not socialist. 

2. Are markets more tailored toward circulation and use or are they more tailored toward accumulating enough personal wealth as possible? If the first, then it might be a market socialist economy. If the latter, then it is a variety of capitalism. 

3. Are there absentee landlords who can evict people whom are occupying a piece of land or a home? If so, then the country is not socialist. 

4. Are financial institutions centralized by a either 1. the bourgeois state or 2. private-public partnerships? If so, then the country is not socialist. 

5. Can people easily exit the wage labor-force and still produce income or join a community which would supplement them? If not, then the country is not socialist. 

Welfare capitalism =|= socialism

That you think it is okay that the state (through taxes) and capitalists (through usury) exploit workers strongly implies that you're not a socialist, merely a welfare capitalist.