OK, so if your definition of socialism is that ANY restriction on free market for ANY reason is socialism then doing away with slavery is socialism. That's not what most people view as socialism. The definition above specifically calls out ECONOMIC theory. If the North had told the South they couldn't have slaves because it was ECONOMICALLY unfair, I would agree it was socialism. When it's for moral reasons, that doesn't fit my, (and I think most people's) definition of socialism. Same thing for environmental regulations. Establish some regulations to limit the damage companies can do the environment (for moral reasons or the greater good, not for the economy) and then let the free market go to work. I'm in favor of that whether we call it socialism or not.
Clearly America has several socialist policies (some of which I like and some I don't).
The part of socialism that I'm not in favor of, and that many American's dislike, is when we limit free market economy because "it's not fair". When we take away the reward for hard work, very few people work hard. As I said before, we need safety nets and programs to help the under-privileged. Those are socialism. I think we should limit them, but we do need them. The goal should be to help people get off those socialistic programs.
There's a lot to unpack here.
I can buy your argument that ending slavery was done for moral reasons, not economic (slaves were great for the economy, that's why capitalists loved them!). We enforce societies morality by our rules and laws - which are inherently political. If you closely read the dictionary definition I provided, you'll see that it specifically refers to 'political and economic' organization. Not just economic.
I have some trouble with your arguing that capitalism should be limited based upon 'morality' though. Morality is a meaningless concept that changes over time, culture, and place. Obviously, slavery wasn't considered immoral for most of the bible (there are many passages that support and condone it). 200 years ago the British would have argued that allowing Indian people to govern themselves was immoral . . . and that without the firm hand of a white man governing terrible chaos would ensue. 100 years ago, most people in the US would argue that being gay was fundamentally immoral. Under some branches of Islamic thinking it's immoral to make interest on a loan. This is a morass of constantly shifting quicksand.
It's also incredibly hard to decide. We limit the ability of a company to damage the environment, because we're afraid that it will damage the home of some wildlife that's endangered. Is preventing the company from doing this fair? Is it moral to allow the company to damage the environment?
But leaving that for a moment . . . The United States has a long history of limiting the free market when things aren't fair. Look up market allocation, bid rigging, price fixing, and monopolies. These have all been limited by law because they're fundamentally unfair business practice. Do you believe that ensuring fair competition is a bad idea?
As far as getting people off of 'socialistic programs' . . . I think what you mean here is stuff like welfare and food stamps, right? We're in agreement that the goal should be to get people to a situation where they're able to break free of these programs and better themselves. The thing is, often times it's social programs that have the best track record of doing this.
To take a case in point . . . criminal reform. Nordic countries consistently do better than we do here in North America with the reformation and reintegration of prisoners into society and reducing recidivism. The reason for this is that they have far more social programs to cover mental health problems, education, job training, etc. Here in North America we often provide the bare minimum . . . and get bare minimum results, including people who learn that it's too hard to succeed so simply give up entirely. Counterintuitively, providing more and better social programs can often reduce reliance on social programs.
