hey, can I inject a question in here---what are the Socialist ethics?
If someone is sick is it your collective duty to keep them alive, if someone is handicapped, or likes to have sex with ten year olds, should their needs be met, or should people who are more burden than aid to the socialist society be removed in some manner? Is there any moral judgment or is it complete acceptance that people are different and every human should get what they want?
The socialism of the "Left" considers that all the kind of defectives you mention should be preserved to an extent that spells doom for society and not the utopia that they believe it would bring. It claims to be socialist and yet plainly the interests of the individual are being allowed to drag down the interests of the collective, which makes it contradictory.
Opposing this is ethnic socialism - putting the interests of the tribe first. This system rejects democracy in favour of the Leadership Principle, but never makes the society serve the leader or serve the State. The leader and the State are there to help their kind.
The Leadership Principle goes back to the first ever human tribes - this is the first and most enduring example of socialistic society. Of course it works - it has worked for millenia. Simply, it is an organised society, with a leader at its head, who leads, directs and plans the interests of the whole group. While having the authority to command, he must be totally responsible to the group.
Consider how the army is organised, having a Commander in Chief at the top, followed by a chain of command: generals, colonels, etc, down to the private.
This system works, it has worked before civilisation, and it continues to work today. It works for corporations as well, and is a time-proven principle.
History shows that leaders should be of their own people (the very word "King" is connected to the word "kin" meaning part of the same homogenous group). This stands in contrast to the leader being, for eg. a traitor fronting for the interests of another group that wish to exploit the people (ie. those who won Monopoly).
To maximise the chances of having a good leader there would have to be an orderly programme of succession. Inheritance of leadership is not advisable. The leader must be well trained and carefully selected by "Elders" who decide the line of succession.
This is far more effective than democracy, which would lead to a chaotic mob rule, except that the present so-called "democracy" is really rule by a State that sees the population as a resource for it to exploit.
A large degree of homogeneity and a common culture is necessary for this form of realistic ideal government to work. It will only work if the people feel they are as one, and not if the society is fractured by individualism and viewing others as enemies and competitors who belong to different tribes.