Well, people call countries like China "socialist", and that's mainly an American undertaking. Socialism is the enemy, remember? In reality, China are far from socialist. They're more like a strange quasi-totalitarian oligarchic capitalism. They don't redistribute money to the poor much, if at all; the political power is solely vested in the Chinese communist party, not in the people; labour power is not given to the Chinese people but to the government and large businesses; and generally your average Chinese person doesn't havea very high quality of life.

The same way, Russia wasn't a truly communist country under Lenin of Stalin. They were in fact totalitarian oligarchic capitalist regimes that masqueraded as progressive Marxism. Some of Stalin's strongest detractors were traditional Marxists. In fact most people credit Jewish writer Hannah Arendt with popularizing the term in her book that explores totalitarianism in Hitler's Germany, but the person who came up with the term "totalitarian" was actually a Russian Marxist and opposition of Stalin, whose name I regrettably can't remember.

Totalitarian wealth control is not the same as socialism; totalitarianism is heavily statist (that's to say the state hold absolute power), whereas the central tenets of socialism are fundamentally different: socialism is about empowering the people by placing economic and political power into their hands, particularly by laws that allow strong influence of labour unions and put infastructures like train lines and energy grids back into the public (rather than federal or state) domain.

Countries with more genuinely socialist tendencies (though I would argue no state is completely socialist yet), are Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and to a lesser degree Western European countries like Germany and Britain.

Traditionally Britain was a left-leaning population, and arguably it still is; the issue is that for many years there have been a lack of genuine leftist political parties (the labour under Blair were more Thatcherite than socialist, and they went along with everything the heavily right wing President Bush wanted), whereas now the Labour party who are traditionally a radical left-leaning party, have a socialist leader in Jeremy Corbyn, who I frankly think will be the next Prime Minister.

After World War 2, a radical leftist Labour-Party leader called Clement Attlee won an unexpected victory over the wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and some of the first things he did were to maintain the nationalization of Britain's railways and power grid, to create laws that give great power to labour unions, to build lots of social housing for the foreign and domestic workers who were in the UK (and for the returning soldiers also), to create a central communications company that provided cheap phone lines and Television lines to citizens, to rework the British Broadcasting Corporation into a company that is publically owned and operated to this day, and to create the National Health Service (as well as several important educational reforms) which is free at the point of contact to this day. What these practices did was allow the government to invest in infrastructure and see a return through operation, hand power to the general working men and women, keep rental costs low, and provide more sustainable, comprehensive services to the public.

Under Blair and subsequent leaders, these tenets have been largely destroyed: much of the rail infrastructure was sold off to private bidders (and within twenty years rail prices have gotten so expensive many people struggle to commute); the British Telecoms monopoly was sold off to private bidders (phone-line prices skyrocketed); much of the NHS has been sold off to private companies (about ten percent, mainly in equipment and pharmaceutical production) and so NHS costs have skyrocketed because taxpayers now have to contend with the costs set out not by government self-regulation of the NHS but by private firms (which is why the NHS is costing more and more to run and why the Conservatives are using it as an excuse to "unburden ourselves of this costly drain on national resources"; which is beyond cynical, since the PM and his cronies are the ones who personally benefit from business links to the companies they've given carte-blanche to drain our NHS system dry); and living conditions have continued to drop dramatically -- welfare has been cut so brutally that the government refuse to release the number of at-risk individuals (disabled people, mentally ill people) who have died a short while after their welfare was cut off.

In my experience, living under what we traditionally call British liberal socialism was far, far better than living under what we now live under, which is essentially a Conservatively led transition into free-market libertarian (some might say "fascist") capitalism. Here are a few lovely quotes from our current rich, entitled capitalist Prime Minister, David Cameron:

On free speech: "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone".

On encrypted civilian communications like WhatsApp: "In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication that [the government] cannot read? My answer to that question is: no, we must not".

On Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (a lovely left-wing gentleman who has been full of class throughout his political career): "He is a threat to our national security, our economic security, and our children's security" (Eerily, three of David Cameron's cronies went on live radio within hours of this to repeat this phrase verbatim, exactly four times each. They ignored the radio-presenters' criticisms of the statement and robotically repeated that phrase. You can find a video that shows both instance here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcYr0uiWmSE I couldn't find it in any of the mainstream media outlets)

On homosexual marriage: "Preventing same sex couples from marrying takes nothing away from their relationship"

On the death penalty in Britain: ""Hanging may seem barbarous, but the greater barbarity lies in the slow abandonment of our common law traditions. Were I ever alone in the dock I would not want to be arraigned before our flawed tribunals... I would prefer a fair trial, under the shadow of the noose."

On zero hour contracts (contracts that allow companies to keep employees on standby by promising them zero guaranteed work hours, but superficially employing them: these contracts also allow the government to cut people's welfare as they are technically "employed"): "The zero-hour contract is badly named. I don’t know whoever came up with that idea. It should be named the flexible hours contract."

On human rights (parahprasing): "We want to repeal the Human Rights Act and leave the Geneva Convention".

People spend so much time conflating leftism and socialism with Hitlerism and Stalinism (incorrectly, I might add) that they don't even realize the inevitable fascist oligarchical societies that top-down laissez-faire free-market capitalism leads to. Anyway, I feel like I've derailed this thread a long way from what it was supposed to be. Suffice to say that criminality, injustice, inequality and top-down power structures seem more often to be the legacy of fake "socialist"totalitarian dictators and extreme right wing capitalists.

To answer your question: countries at the moment like Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland (as well as Britain pre-Thatcherism) are good examples of socialism done properly. All four of those countries have relatively low violent crime rates and relatively high quality of life, when you compare them to heavily-capitalist countries like Cameron's Britain or the USA under the Bush administration.