Ok since you and I clearly have different definitions of socialism please define socialism as you see it and we'll go from there.
Well, socialism is far too broad a philosophy to easily and briefly define and there are different variations. I think that anarcho-democratic-socialism would work best for western civilization.
First let me start out by saying that communist China, Russia, etc. are not true socialism and, in fact, aren't even close. These are/were simply corrupt oligarchies that operated under the guise of socialism to dupe people into supporting their revolutions (or supporting their coops). So put out of your mind the preconceived notions you have about socialism and leave behind the associations that have been programmed there about it.
I want to first address your tetris example to show you the basic philosophy of true socialism. So the guy that invented tetris was screwed by communist Russia and so were the people of Russia, the only people who benefitted were those in power because Russia didn't really adhere to socialist principles. But, had Russia been truly socialist, the guy who invented tetris would have had absolute freedom to dedicate his life to working with the game. After the first version was so successful, he would've been able to hire as many people as he wanted and who he wanted to be part of the succcess of the game. In essence, if he wanted to work on the game to manufacture and distribute the game and make new versions and variations of the game he would have to share his success. In other words, hiring people who immediately have "profit" sharing as a benefit. As long as they make enough money to continue the operation, they can. If they are successful enough to make a profit, they can expand, and as they expand the people they hire will share in "profit" so that the success of the company is everyone's responsibility. The government has nothing to do with it other than to tax the company and to ensure that it operates under socialist principles. If they stop making money, they shrink and shrink, until its just Alexei (I think that was his name, who invented tetris) and he can continue until he has to find another job. But he won't be homeless, he won't starve, and, more importantly, his children won't be homeless or starve. And neither will any of the children in his community.
And his community will be small. Instead of a large city government, a large county government, a state government, and a central federal government, there will be small community governments governed by members of that community because socialism won't work for a large population. But it will work for a group of small communities that make up a city. And it will work for a small group of counties, and then a small group of states all treated as individuals instead of governments. Trade still happens between individuals of a community, and between communities, and between cities, and between states. Those who live in rural Iowa work on collective farms (if they choose to) and reap the benefit of success of that farm and that farm trades with a collective corn processing company in Ohio that manufactures corn products; and that corn processing company trades with a collective machine company out of Detroit for machine parts or a collective truck company out of New Jersey to distribute their products. The trade can be money and barter for goods and services produced by the collective company or by the community to which the collective belongs.
So there is in essence some capitalst principles. But, no one is wealthy and no one is impoverished. You still benefit from success if you invent something, you just don't get wealthy from it. Instead you can start a collective company producing the invention and coming up with new inventions and you, your employees, and your community all benefit from it - not just materially but "spiritually". You employees don't just work for a wage, they work for themselves. And if they don't work, they get fired. The government is a collective of people who know you and knows your situation and provides only the necessities such as housing, food, water, energy (such as heat and electricity), etc. If you want a phone, a tv, cable or satellite service, a computer, internet service, nice furniture, good food, a bigger house, etc., you have to work.
And you won't have to work 40 hours a week with 5 vacation days a year. You work whatever your collective decides is sufficient to run the company (which in most cases will be far less than 40 hours) and you'll get a month of vacation a year (maybe more) if that's what everyone decides. That way you can spend time raising your children and spend time with your wife and enjoy your youth instead of working like slave until you're at an age and at a financial situation when you can finally retire (which is just a few years before you die in the current economic system). So there are democratic principles too because democracy works better in smaller scales. I'm for adherence to a living constitution with basic unchanging moral and ethical principles (i.e. so that tyranny of the majority doesn't occur).
And we adopt a system similar to the UK's NHS. Is it perfect? No. But can we do better? I think so. No one needs to be denied health care or become homeless because of a monopolistic health insurance company who operates for profit and not for the welfare of its customers.
Is it perfect? No. Will there be high unemployment? Not necessarily but it will occur from time to time though it won't matter because there won't be a poor class. Will people abuse the system? Yeah. But most will not. And there won't be ultra-powerful, rich lobbies and special interest groups, there won't be Wal-marts but instead lots of small, private, family-run businesses. There won't be a few auto companies but lots of different cars. Competition will be fierce. Prices will stay low, and therefore cost will remain low. The government won't subsidize farms not to grow crops. Crime will be low, and drug abuse and alcoholism will be rarer. And everyone will have the same opportunity to achieve happiness in their own manner instead of spending their youth and their lives to make already wealthy people wealthier.
Most importantly is that everyone lives well, works for themselves, and their children have the equal opportunity to achieve success as they define it and not based obtaining wealth and/or power.
If this nation were to adopt such as system, which I understand is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, the only things that would change is the system of representation, and the dismemberment of corporations and private ownership of those now smaller companies would go to its employees and not an individual (unless he/she is the only employee) or a board of investors or owners unless that board is made up of the employees. Doctors would become the new health insurance companies so that neither a bureaucrat nor an insurance board determines your level of care.
That is a broad and very brief description of the socialism that I see as most beneficial to society as a whole. Basically money isn't the focus and the human spirit is.
(suffering)
(celebration)
