You're not describing socialism but social democracy. While both "socialism" and "social democracy" have the word "social" in them the comparison largely stops there. Neither are current France and Spain socialist countries, let alone the Nordic countries since all these have a (regulated) market economy with a large private sector. Sanchez (Spain's prime minister) is a socialist but that does not make the whole country socialist. Macron is not a socialist, the Nordic countries are governed largely by centre-right to centre-left coalitions.
Socialism is the precursor to communism, the "dictature or the proletariat" where the means of production are "socialised" or, in clearer terms, nationalised and run by the state. The end goal of socialism is communism, the "class-less state" which is supposed to eventually wither away because it is no longer needed because "everyone is a communist". This last stage with the withered-away state has never and shall never be reached because it goes against human nature which means the true end stage of socialism and communism is the large and oppressive state which defends its necessity by constantly pointing at in- and outside forces which are out to topple it.
Socialism and communism can only work at a small scale, small enough so that everyone really knows everyone and there is no need for a "Party" and the related "party elite" to rule. Even at that small scale conflicts arise - "Johnny got twice as much ice cream as I did, NOT FAIR" - but those tend to be easily settled since everyone knows everyone and there is no "elite" which is treated differently from the rest. At a larger scale that elite quickly succumbs to the same human vices which doom feodalism, crony capitalism and similar systems.
I am disheartened and rather flabbergasted by the way this has to be explained time and time (and time) again. Socialism is BAD, m'kay? Social democracy is OK because it doesn't violate basic human principles which make that people put their personal and familial needs over those of the collective. Socialism and communism do violate those principles which means people ruled under them need to constantly be kept in check by the state lest they try to take care of their own needs before serving the collective. That in turn necessitates a large state which begets the "party elite" which turns the whole thing into a twisted form of feudalism where the serfs have to pretend it is all for their own good while the masters feast on the spoils of their labour. Those spoils tend to get thinner and thinner because nobody is really invested in making things work viz. the Soviet joke of "we pretend to work while they pretend to pay us" which widens the gap between the "party elite" and the rest of the population which leads to more dissatisfaction which leads to more repression until the whole thing collapses.
From the ruins of yet another failed socialist state a new state is born. Things start to go well, the economy is flourishing and people send their children to university where they are radicalised by the remaining few ideologues who holed up there. They are told that "real socialism (or communism, more or less the same thing here) has never been tried" and that the previous regime was corrupted by outside forces, Jews, whatever, just as long as the blame is shifted away from the failed ideology. The seeds for the next iteration have been sown.