Actually, LS is right in his definiton of Socialism; it means the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The problems with that are that common, in other words, state, ownership, means there is no competition in an industry, so it has no incentive to try to do well. Socialist states can never raise enough in tax to pay for their spending, so end up borrowing money, have no idea how they will pay it back, so bankrupt the nation. And socialist governments try to control and interfere with every aspect of your life. I certainly believe that social programmes should be provided to cater for those in need, but I don't believe the state is usually the best equipped to do it. And where it is working, such as in our wonderful British NHS, the downside is, it becomes a political football. America never elects socialists due to a fear of it, which is irrational given that they have no experience of living with it. Here in Britain, it can't get elected, at least not to the Westminster parliament (the Scots parliament and Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies are different) because we have had it, and know what a mess it made!
