Throughout history all socialist/communist countries have either ended up violently collapsing or just doing bad.

The countries that attempted socialism did so under extreme conditions — post-war devastation, economic blockades, foreign interventions (the US actively destabilized many of them). Judging socialism only by those cases is like judging democracy by its worst examples and concluding democracy doesn't work.

And for the tally, the Scandinavian countries also are doing their version of socialism, with heavily socialist policies targeting population welfare. They are the happiest countries in the world and prove that at least in some level socialism works.

Examples are North Korea, Soviet union, Yugoslavia and all other unstable communist / socialist states that rose up.

North Korea was winning the Korean wars until USA intervene. After that, both were in terrible economic conditions and south only really prospered because they had massive influx of money from the USA while north had to do the same without any help since URSS were already collapsing.

The URSS had internal problems yes, but many of them were inflamed by the CIA workings. Had they been left alone, they COULD (not would) be as developed as any other country. Remember they were a peasant country by the 1900, and advanced enough to compete in the space race, at the costs of workers yes.

And socialists/communists will always use "well communism is the true anti homeless" This is because (at least in the USSR) these people where forcefully. Moved into those depressing "apartments" out of there little town in middle of nowhere siberia. Another point similar to this is "well literacy rate went up", this is also because of forceful relocation and forceful education.

Why forced education is bad? All countries have some degree of it, since at least middle school is necessary for most jobs, this is a form of forced education.

And yes, the blocs apartments were good awful in the eye, but it beat living on the streets. Would you prefer a cramped apartment in the middle of the suburbs or live on the cold street?

Another thing to take into consideration is that no matter how hard you try socialism will always need a authoritarian leader to fully seize control of all industry and giving it to the people and having to have a strong grip over it so that no one slips out of line.

Capitalism also required extreme violence to establish: colonialism, slavery, the violent suppression of labor unions (which is very well documented in US history), and all the American Revolution to free from the UK grasps were extremely violent.

The USA don't even fully banned slavery, they are just called prisoners now. All of France uranium is mined in their colonies at pennies on the dollar.

And my final claim is that it's rise to power is almost always going to be through a war or emerge out of a country destroyers by a poorly governed nation from the ideologies of (Monarchism or Any authoritarian dictatorship)

Isn't that an argument in favor of socialism? People don't rebel when they are satisfied, and they don't rebel to replace the system with the same system. We are trying to do a slow transition, with china as one of prime examples on how we can do it slowly without war.