You can't have socialism without capitalism. You can have capitalism without socialism. Obviously, socialism is dependent upon capitalism.
You need the value that capitalism provides to decide whether that wealth needs to be forcibly distributed in a great vote-of-power struggle that has risen societies and crumbled others.
How will this game play out in the west? In my opinion, it's not really known. Socialism has a historical reputation for death and destruction. It has brought powerful nations to their knees and subjected its citizens to a mad-max existence time after time. Even today we have Venezuela as a modern example of policy being driven by a population who don't know how to drive.
Part of the need for socialism can be blamed on technology. You could say that the technology birthed by capitalism grew into socialism. The automation has provided an abundance of wealth and left people jobless in its path. Some estimates have attributed a 600% increase in productivity for the same manpower in less than two generations - a paradigm shift in the idea that everyone can work and be productive. Don't get me wrong, if we lose the technology, the jobs would return but socialism seems to be another answer.
That's right. Technology could allow for socialism work in the short-term. If this is true, it's likely to manifest in other problems that we're seeing trends of currently. Massive immigration aside, we have people who have no purpose in life. Psychological and physical apathy has given a massive rise in health costs. We have no historical example to see how this new socialism plays-out.
The worst-case scenario could be a socialism that never ends. Socialism should end in economic collapse, starvation, government collapse, crime and eventually a power vacuum that either turns into capitalism, communism or some other form of unity and order. But what if there's a complete economic collapse where people don't starve? Imagine a world of free soup kitchens, free dilapidated housing and no jobs. If the basic needs of living are met and all means of production must be shared, what would an entrepreneur start? Why would an entrepreneur start anything? How would an entrepreneur start anything? It would be a socialist stagnation. There might be jobs to run the machines but no incentive for innovation and advancement.