I think its a good definition specifically to culture, mind you think that culture is very important, almost all important and personal and cultural proceeds structural adjustments.
totally fair, I think; it's all in the mindset.
NAZI, for example, includes socialist in its name; and may even have been if you define their priorities as 'the good of the aryan society is more important than the good of the not-aryan society.' They could be argued as having chosen one social circle to dominate or eliminate all others. In that regard, America is going the same today, prioritizing the health and security of the CEO above all else (including the lives of 45,000 americans every year would could have easily been saved, and for the benefit of one for-profit industry alone. Yes, that literally means 45,000 people a year are dying in order to make rich people here even richer at the very minimum.)
Meanwhile, however, market-friendly socialist countries like Denmark or (i think) Sweden have a different intent behind their socialism. 'The good of the citizen is more important than the good of concentrated wealth.' And don't get me wrong, they along with modern Germany ~have~ wealthy people... these folk just have to match their responsibility toward civilization to what they take from it (i.e., finite wealth), one individual from which was quoted saying 'I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country,' when pestered by an American journalist about his high personal income tax rates.
America's most stable and financially healthiest years came adorned with a virtually identical policy and ever since the rich bought out the lawmakers starting in the late 70s (taking effect 'round 1980), the worker has been the punching bag, the economy has become a zombie, and national security has become a war machine instead that has learned that it can make a killing by stirring up trouble that it can then later be paid to resolve.
It should also probably be mentioned that there really aren't any non-socialist governments on the planet at this time (except where there is no government and only anarchy rules.) It's all a matter of degree. To have a public sector is to embrace a unit of socialism. Did you have to personally pay to have the highway brought to your town, or did you share in the burden with the rest of the taxpayers? If the answer is the latter, then your road system is socialist. Do you have to pay protection money to the local mercenaries or do you band together with the rest of society to help fun a police force, fire department, and military? If so, then your police force, fire department, and military are all social[ist] constructs. Granted, the USA has opted out of social medicine, but that only makes us slightly less socialist than the U.K., for example, who socializes medicine. Not NOT socialist entirely.
Whee, I talk too much. It just matters to me. I still half-believe humanity is worth saving from extinction, so I rant.