Mises definition is nonsense but I’m using it anyway. And according to HIS definition, which I am using, socialism is rational. Sorry, deal with it.
Only if you, by defintion, equate “socialism” to poverty and starvation, which is another arbitrary defition that you use to try to win the argument.
The truth of the matter is that you reject a rational system (socialism) based on your arbitrary judgements of value. Also, as I mentioned earlier, poverty is subjective. Or are you going to pull some collectivistic GDP statistics to show how wealthy the west is? Number of mcdonald’s burgers per capita?