You're changing the meaning of something to suit your agenda. What you're describing are tenets of a social democracy. The reason you use the word 'socialism' is because it's been coined by the US and other rampant capitalist nations as a blanket term to smear foreign governments that dare to do things differently. Everyone should be fearful of socialism because of the Soviets, or Venezuela, or whatever anomalous foreign government the US has most recently tried its damnedest to destroy.
Afghanistan is a case in point. Prior to US intervention it was a functioning, liberal democracy with free medical care and equal rights for women and minorities. In the late 1980s, women made up half its university students, 40 percent of its doctors, 70 percent of its teachers and 30 percent of its civil servants. Meanwhile, the US was secretly spending $500 million on spreading Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia in an effort to overthrow the Afghan government, including recruiting, training and arming the mujahedin (from which the Taliban would be born), all because the Afghan government was supported by the Soviet Union. And thanks to US efforts, the mujahedin successfully overthrew the Afghan government and fought off the Soviets, securing Afghanistan's doom. And there we have it: another 'failed' socialist state. Of course, this is by no means unprecedented. The US has sought to overthrow (either overtly or covertly) countless 'socialist' foreign governments over the years.
You're basically peddling a narrative that the US has spent many years and many billions of dollars cultivating, because they're terrified that people might realise that something better exists and want to do something about it. The funny thing is, if the narrative was actually true then they wouldn't have needed to spend a cent.
