Why do you think that? To the extent that a correlation exists between the level of social benefits offered by a country and the amount of horrors committed by its government, I would expect it to go the opposite direction (i.e. brutal dictators are more likely to hoard resources than share them freely). I have heard some attempts to substantively make the argument that socialized economies lead to brutality before, but every one I have seen has relied on a pretty blatant sleight of hand where laissez-faire economics is conflated with democracy. If you're aware of an analysis that does an apples to apples comparison and comes to that conclusion, that would be very interesting.

A socialized economy does not need to come with the death of democracy. The idea that communism can only be achieved if power rests on workers through something else than legislative elections is poison.

Those have all been authoritarian. There are anarchist visions of "socialized economy"

Same goes for capitalism currently. If the bar for the economic system is no more genocide, barbarism, hunger, exploitation of the workers or wars then you're aiming for something utopian immediately. Capitalism definitely has not solved these issues. In fact it's currently destroying the whole ecosystem.

It's hard to take a comment like this seriously given all the bloodshed that has come about because of capitalism.

Now, it could just be that people who accumulate power also accumulate the means to defend that power, and that to accumulate it in the first place you've almost got to be a sociopath, but that's actually being thoughtful instead of bringing up context-barren boogeymen.

strawman. socialism != communism.