Damn you Steve, I staked out that spot while browsing during class today, and rushed back to write a response, but you've already taken it
Oh well, this will still be a delicious meal.
First, Ostrich, go read Max Weber before you even think about preaching about "western ideals", because I know you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about when you use that term.
Second, get your terminology straight. There is not such thing as a "socialist government" in the world today. There are governments which practise socialist policies, but this is a very very important distinction that needs to be made, and I need to know you're with me on this before we move on. We good?
Okay.
Now why it's important to distinguish between socialist policies is that the governments which practice socialist policies can be democratic or dictatorial. The same is also true for the neoclassical ("Free market") model, which can also employed by democratic and authoritarian governments. Those who somehow equate democracy with the free market and dictatorial regimes with socialism together are ignorant, and severely lack a sense of historical perspective. Here are some examples:
Sweden is a highly socialist country, but by many standards (and that was the economist, not some pro-European pinko rag), it is one of the most democratic governments on Earth, allotting its people more control of the government than any other.
In stark contrast, I'll bring up a case in Latin America (Which you hinted about earlier as being an area of "great concern" to you, but I'm pretty sure you have no fucking idea about). One of the most successful free market economies to emerge in the 20th century was Chile in 1974 after coming under the rule of Augusto Pinochet. The Drawback? Well, first it's Generalissimo Pinochet to you, fucker, and it was also one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century with zero workers rights, low standards of living, and absolutely no democracy.
Littered among these are dozens of other examples. For example, before Pinochet's coup, Chile was actually under the presidency of a full blown Marxist leader, Salvador Allende. The catch was he was the first Marxist leader ever democratically elected in history, and was a testament to Chile's long standing democratic tradition until the conservative force of Pinochet brought Allende down, and with him Chilean democracy.
What I need you to understand here is this: Democratic ideals such as the amount of control citizens have over their government, voting rights, rights to property and land, civil liberties, and all those "western" ideals you like to speak about, have absolutely no exclusive (or inclusive) correlation with socialism or neoclassical models. There is simply no connection, and you're trying to make one like every other Neo-McCarthyite out there. You can have democratic capitalistic economies like the United States or you can have Authoritarian and capitalistic societies like China, you can have democratic and socialist societies like Sweden, or you can have Authoritarian and socialist societies like the former USSR (or lack thereof). It doesn't make a difference.
So the moral of the story is, Socialism can't be a threat to the world beyond the capacity that the government who wields it is a threat to the world. The USSR was a land hungry menace that actively created conflict within Eastern Europe and the Middle East to spread its influence. The Swedes are happy enough to spend all day in the sauna. How threatening these governments were had nothing to do with the fact that they were socialist, it had to do with their militaristic and political ambitions. That's what you need to look at.
Also to everyone claiming Chavez is an out of control dictator, please realize his referendum for temporary "unlimited" presidential powers actually failed, and as the Venezuelan oil economy continues to sour, so does Chavez's popular support (something which was arguably only high because of the economic boom inaugurating his election). It is now a very sure fact that Chavez is going to have a hell of a fight ahead of him if he wants to remain president when elections roll around. Just because our media likes to take Chavez on his word that he's a crazy dictator doesn't actually inflate his power beyond his constitutional limits, in the reality that exists outside of the TV screens he's actually quite a weak president.