I do sometimes say something along the lines of "We don't know whether socialism works because there has never been any true socialism", but if so, then that is only as a quick doorstop for those who choose to slag socialism in a knee-jerk reaction without even knowing what they're talking about.
But no, that is not what I was saying in the above-quoted excerpt — see farther down.
For that matter, people also generally have the wrong idea of what fascism is. Most people equate fascism with Adolf Hitler and national-socialism — which, given the name "national-socialism", is yet one other stick that the opponents of socialism like waving around.
Nazism was a form of fascism, but not the only one. In fact, before Adolf Hitler founded the NSDAP and began preaching hatred toward the Jews, his role model was Benito Mussolini — whom he ironically later on degraded to a mere puppet for the Nazi regime, once World War II was in full swing.
Fascism is a system of government in which the true power lies with corporations — not necessarily of the commercial flavor, although those will certainly be part of it — and where the government itself is then a mere sock puppet for the corporate world. Usually, there is then also only a single political party.
Fascism also places great importance on collectivism — you have to be loyal to the state, and a true patriot — and nationalism, as well as on militarism. Being a member of the military grants one exceptional social status, and especially so if one belongs to an elite division of the military.
Has anyone spotted the elephant in the room yet?
By the way, as I've already mentioned elsewhere, you may or may not like director Paul Verhoeven, but when he set out to create the "Starship Troopers" movie, he was telling the US American audience: "Look, here are your heroes who slay the monsters. It just so happens to be that your heroes are Nazis."
The voluntary part is obligatory, of course. Without that, you're set up for a dictatorship — whether it's an individual who's the dictator or whether it's a party dictatorship.
This is why I put a lot of emphasis on responsibility. True socialism, in my opinion, would be akin to anarchy, but the word "anarchy" has also been used and abused over the ages and has come to mean "chaos". That is not what anarchy is. Anarchy means "no rulers" — no ruling class, no ruling caste, no ruling politicians/officials.
The only way for a society to exist in peace, harmony and justice is the holographic model, where every individual of society has a sense of responsibility toward their fellow human beings — which is not the same thing as "toward the state", because then you're on your way to fascism — and where society itself has a sense of responsibility for each and every individual being. One for all and all for one.
Such a society should also not hold any secrets whereas its organizational activities are concerned. No alphabet soup agencies, no lobbies or other pressure groups, and no hidden backroom dealings. Organizational decisions should be made on a consensus ruling, with every individual having all the information available — and properly explained to them if they don't understand — and every individual then being allowed to speak their mind. Referendums are a step in the right direction, but are at the same time too limited, because they distill the issues down to a "yes/no" choice, and they don't allow any room for considered opinions.
Alas, this requires a spiritual maturity which cannot be found here on Earth yet, because of the flawed (and indoctrinating) education system, and because of the collectivist approaches of both capitalist and socialist regimes. Every individual is distinct and should therefore be guided and educated along what's best for their own intellectual and social development. An industrialized, collectivist approach to education, healthcare and whatever else — which is what we have now — doesn't work.
Another thing is that in order to be able to practically organize such a society and keep track of every individual's considered opinions in the decision-making, we would have to embrace artificial intelligence. That doesn't mean that we should let the artificial intelligence make the decisions, but it would be a lot easier to gather everyone's votes and opinions that way. Artificial intelligence should be regarded as a tool — a very useful tool, but a tool nevertheless.
Too many so-called futurists and "A.I. gurus" are trying to turn A.I. into a kind of deity because of its alleged superior intelligence. But it is not "intelligent". It's just a very advanced type of computer technology. It should be treated with respect — as should everything, really — and it should be put to good use.
The above are just some thoughts, and they are probably incomplete, but I only just got out of bed.