Socialism failed. It failed in every variety of realised socialism enacted. It failed in the central, rugged, soviet format; it failed in worker-controlled (various forms) of Balkan socialism; it failed after the arrival of the market-mimicking wonders of computer modelling so beloved of the Poles. It failed even as it improved and began to deliver goods and growth to consumers.
It failed because capitalism, quite simply, delivered better. Market socialism could never respond fast enough, just plain smartly enough, to human desires. It is first rate in providing food, shelter, education and amelioration of health collapses, at a basic, everyone-in, level. Once that threshold has been passed it becomes irrelevant. Someone somewhere is suffering from the lack of this basic provision? Then they'd better get their skates on and start insisting to their rulers that this lack is the result of non-socialist, 'capitalist' selfishness. Which may be true but is more an argument for economic migrants to stand up for themselves rather than run away to greener pastures.
Most of us have reached the point that we want what we want when we want it. Not the point that we'll be 'disadvantaged'. Necessarily this requires that providers are amazingly fast at providing; which only comes from their profit in doing so. Not some kind of moral satisfaction (though moral claims may well be satisfied by the provision) but by a satisfactory exchange. You want this? Pay that, we accept you are a satisfactory exchange partner (or we wouldn't be dealing with you at all) and there may even be an excess generated by these transactions to cope with failed transactions and their victims.
We cannot go on with the nonsense propaganda that it is co-operation that provides for humanity. Exchange, and forcibly asserting its relevant (to the moment) ownership, moves the world.