That doesn't make any sense as a statement. It sounds like you can't force freedom on people, but yeah you can make them free without consent but I don't get how that makes sense in this context.

Multiple countries show socialism works perfectly fine for essential and shared services and other things a society needs. It doesn't work for everything, which is why so many countries are a blend of socialist public stuff like universal healthcare, free education, and those kinds of things whle still having capitalism in the firm of private for profit companies for non-essential stuff like restaurants and clothing stores.

Note that if the country has socialist in the name it probably isn't actually socialist in practice.

ITT: People who don't know the definition of Socialism.

Socialism is simply when the workers of a business all equally share ownership of the business ("means of production") and thus have input on how the business is run.

Socialist businesses would still trade their goods in a marketplace, which could even be a "free market."

There are countries that were made democratic not by the people but their dictator/monarch. Why couldn’t the same happen with socialism?

Also one should consider that (at least in the non Stalinist definition) socialism more or less just means worker coops. There are worker coops. There is the theoretical possibility that their numbers rise until private companies are basically non existent. Socialism doesn’t necessarily require a revolution.