I think that almost every idea within politics has been corrupted by now by heartless entities - so we don't really have experience of much that hasn't had the twisted light of heartless thoughts caught up in it and changing it's form.

I am not a 'socialist' and I am not any kind of 'ist'. I appreciate anarchy, but i am not an anarchist - since I know who I am and cannot be defined so simply. If we look at the common dictionary definition of socialism, we see something like:

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Usually, in my experience, anarcho-capitalists will claim that it is government that has wrecked capitalism and given it a 'bad name' - they will also say that socialism and communism cannot exist without government. The communist/socialist anarchists often attempt to use the same argument against the capitalists to some extent. LOL

You are right, anything that is forced is not compassionate. Balance exists only when 'no part or aspect is overpowering any other'. When we understand this and seek balance, it is apparent that the heartlessness that pervades society will quickly use force whenever it sees that it will further it's agenda - regardless of whether it operates through a monarch's crown, a communist dictator or a religious army.

"the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively "

Is actually, potentially, a good thing - IF the people are balanced and enlightened. but then it can also be said that the alternative of having private ownership can also be a good thing IF the people are balanced and enlightened. So, yes - what is most needed is real and agile balance/compassion and not a particular political ideology.