„Socialism" is the political system that existed in the states otf the former eastern block: The Union of Socialist Republic (UdSSR), the so called „German Democratic Republic" (East Germany), various peoples republics etc. The fundamental part of it is that there is no private property in means of production: everything is owned by the collective of the people (represented by state or party). As a consequence there are no free trade unions with rights to strike - every strike would by definition be against the people and a sabotage of socialism (You might remember that the founding of a free union named Solidarnoscz in Poland stood at the beginning of the eastern block`s downfall).
Connected to this is the fact that socialism always tied itself to the absolutly repugnant totalitatian dictatorship models. This is inherent to the system. You can`t give people free speech and other civil rights and prevent them from demanding better pay, work conditions etc. at the same time.
I do have a problem with dictatorships. And working in former East Germany after the wall came down I have seen what socialism has done to a part of my country and its people - ruining the economy and depriving people of their civil rights (even the right to leave).
Democracy and a market economy have been far more successful in solving the problems of mankind than socialism. I don`t claim our system to be perfect, but the people in your examples above would be better off in a free market democracy with an improved social system like most western european states have (what we call „Soziale Marktwirtschaft" = social market economy). I guess the aims of the US democrats go in that direction. Also Carol C.`s definition, if I understood it right. If that is what you favour we only disagree about words.
Now I would like to know your definition of „socialism" and any possible practical experiences you had with it.