Well, I think that rather depends on how you define socialism, how you apply it, and how you ensure that its proper application is free of sabotage by the remaining constructs of capitalism within the territory in question, if we are talking about a mixed economy with socially committed taxation and public expenditure, or from outside, in the case of a command economy.

And, crucially, whether it is free of malpractice and nepotism by those in positions of power.

Clearly the argument 'No one's ever tried proper socialism' is a tired (though in fact justifiable) one by now. And it is understandable that many believe rather than trying the same thing again and expecting a different result, it would be better just to ditch the whole idea.

But I believe that the goal, the ideal, is correct. And that we should set about devising the most effective, best safeguarded system within our possibilities in pursuit of that goal.

Merely allowing some to rise slowly up the escalator, so long as others are brought in or outsourced (from somewhere) to occupy their lowly place at the bottom, falls far short of the ambition to which we should aspire as a species, in my view.

The Nordic countries are technically capitalist. So is the USA. So is China, in truth. There are abysmal gulfs between them in the quality of life they offer all their citizens. And I would suggest that those differences lie in the extent to which they temper the mechanics of capitalism with the underlying goal of socialism: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.