No, that's called paying taxes and funding a government. I'd suggest you crack a political science textbook if you want to actually know what socialism is.
The problem with socialism is that there are so many definitions of the word that it's actually rather meaningless (this is generally true of every -ism in political theory).
Nevertheless, if we're discussing socialism in the context of the contest between different economic and political organizing philosophies in the 19th century, then rspoerri would in fact be correct to call what he did socialism. The demand for the government to provide various social functions (including things like healthcare or pensions), adding progressive taxation to provide some measure of wealth redistribution, and the limitation of corporate rights over workers (e.g., child labor laws, minimum wage laws, working hour laws) are all hallmarks of the socialist movement that were eventually pretty universally adopted, in contrast to the activists for capitalism.
While there is definitely room for disagreement of what constitutes socialism, I would be surprised to find any political science textbook that wouldn't consider government provision of services (especially as opposed to private provision) a hallmark of socialism.
So goverment healthcare is not a socialistic system? The public infrastructure that is built using taxes and can be used by anyone and is owned by the goverment which represents the inhabitants is not socialistic?
wikipedia: While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.
what, if not a socialistic system, is it then in your opinion?
