What do you think they are then?
I think at base, socialism is the control of the means of production by the workers. Although that's extremely vague.
In practical terms, socialism attempts to maximise the returns of societal production to the workers. How it does this varies enormously. The Eastern bloc Communist nations nationalised industry, put them in control of the state which was technically run by a party workers (although in practice much less so, as the leadership were hard to control by the party base). Anarchism suggests a communal ownership model. In a system more recognisable to our own, some would suggest worker ownership models, such as co-operatives or worker shareholders (e.g. a large minimum percentage of a regular company's shares must be owned by the workers of that company). In many democratic socialist models, it's simply taking a base capitalistic system and scooping out a healthy chunk of national income in tax and distributing it to workers and the poor - providing healthcare, welfare, good transport, and other needs and even minor luxuries, or otherwise ensuring high standards of care either itself (minimum wage and strong labour regulations) or letting the workers do it themselves with labour unions.
The point being that socialism is overwhelmingly an economic system. It actually says pretty much nothing about enforcement and control by the state.
* * *
I think enforcement and state control of information are different factors. They're more about circumstances and tactics to achieve an end that have validity across the political spectrum. Under a state of extreme war, for instance, even a liberal democratic state will take a tight grip on information control.
Communist rule was born of blood and fire, not peaceful transition. To take the USSR, this involved violent overthrow, years of civil war and invasions by external powers, and a persistent sense of threat (in that the rest of the world wanted the Communist regime destroyed). Furthermore, perhaps, the legacy of authoritarian rule from the Tsars and relatively low institutional care for its citizens. The USSR's leaders were paranoid about dissent and external influence - but perhaps rationally so. The second factor would be the massive systemic reforms it wanted, which required a high degree of centralised authority and control. Put in that light, it is perhaps no surprise it was itself highly authoritarian. I think these issues are common across most Communist regimes (e.g. China, Cuba), because they have taken power the same way and encountered the same challenges.
Heavy socialism or communism has been practiced elsewhere without such abuses. Julius Nyerere, for instance, ruled Tanzania and enacted very widespread socialist measures across his country without heavy repression, even though it failed to produce hoped-for economic gains. Chavez and Morales in South America were certainly no worse than their predecessors; both of course removed by coups (alebeit Chavez only temporarily), just in case we're in any doubt as to the nature of their political opponents and state of their country.
However, in practice, this is little different from any other economic system. The aforementioned Pinochet. Syngman Rhee, who was appointed ruler of South Korea after WW2 by the USA, was likewise brutal and authoritarian to enforce control over his country. In fact, decades later, a Korean friend of mine told me there were still a load of postwar South Korean histories technically banned because they painted the early rule of the country in an unflattering light. Highly corrupt regimes also often control information, so that the public cannot probe their corruption. And as we can see in places like Poland and Hungary, albeit without such mass violence, the systematic erosion of civil liberties and political freedom by populist, nationalist right-wing regimes that seem little more than power-grabs.
* * *
Therefore, my overall feeling about socialism is that it is a reflection of the society, history and circumstances of the society that creates it. Socialism, and more so Communism, has frequently been born in troubled or unstable countries with authoritarian traditions, and thus has reflected that. Capitalism (or whatever else) operating in such states is effectively little different from socialism in terms of risk of repression and authoritarianism.
Second to that, the most advanced and stable countries in the world have generally been capitalism-based (mixed economy) liberal democracies. We don't see strong socialism in them because, relatively, they've never had the impetus to go there. For all the flaws in the system, they have largely succeeded in delivering sufficiently such that the populace has not wanted the system overturned. Capitalism is certainly
economically more free than socialism, but I think if we only look at the West compared to Communism we can also have a false sense that capitalism is
socially free where socialism is not, although I don't think this survives when we take a wider look at the world.
