Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as well as universal public healthcare. These are all things which almost every modern nation recognizes as good ideas. Where it goes off the rails is when you formulate an entire political theory that can be summed as "We shall get a moral and dependable dictator to forbid people from engaging in Capitalism or owning excessive property, thus forcing everyone to work for the common good. This will eventually lead to people naturally working for the common good, because that's what humans naturally do.". The main problem with that one is obvious by word #8, but it contains a few extra fallacies beyond that.

Now, it's perfectly possible to embed socialized literature grants and "literary tenure" within a capitalist system if democratic society believes that is the best way of generating valuable literary works that are not likely to produce an immediate return of investment in the open market. We can even do that simultaneously with a publishing industry producing literary works with a focus towards profitability. Scientific research and some forms of artistic creation already work this way.

As for completely replacing capitalism, as opposed to just having a mostly-capitalist mixed economy? Well, I can't see it happening in a scarcity society, but I can imagine it happening in a post-scarcity one. Suppose we get to the point where robots farm food for us, robots gather natural resources for us and robots keep basic infrastructure working for us. Now, suppose that at one point we mostly trade in "services" and "ideas" (software, books, music, movies, 3D printable designs for all our physical stuff). At what point there does capitalism becomes silly? "Oh, I don't need money to live, I am designing this car to get paid so that I can buy the 3D printable design of my bed. Oh, wait, someone open-sourced the design for the bed I wanted, neat, let me print it. Guess I can open-source my car design too." "But hey, does that mean you are never making another car design?" "Are you kidding? I love designing cars and what else would I do with my time? Besides, I get a kick out of seeing people driving the car I designed!". The beauty is that we wouldn't even need most people to think that way, just a small fixed count from the population. Things like reputation and competition for real state might have to be solved differently in a society without capitalism, but lets be honest, capitalism is a poor system for solving those two anyways, as evidenced by rent prices in the Bay Area and "Am I a failure if I am not worth $1Bn by age 22?" questions on Quora.

Now, capitalism is probably still the best system we know of to solve resource allocation and promote technological innovation in the conditions of contemporary human society. But those conditions are subject to change. So, yes, "we need capitalism because people need to exchange and accumulate [physical, non-duplicable, scarce] goods freely" is true at the moment. But so would have been at a time: "we need the King to keep all the feudal lords and their peasants united in peace and organized in the case of barbarian invasions".

(Note: This rant turned longer than I expected. Also, HN might be the weirdest place on the net to do a Commie rant ;) )