He might at that, but the word has differnet meanings to different people.  There can never be any agreement about what 'socialism' does or should mean because there can never be much more agreement about what Karl Marx intended in his magnum opus 'das kapital'.  It can be interpreted in many different ways, but he was most likely responding to the obvious poverty in the wealthiest city on Earth at that time, London, England.  He never lived long enough to see the fruits of the industrial revolution come to pass, and thus that same abject poverty alieviated by capitalists' own self-serving greed.  Who knows how he would have been changed by that.  As for myself, any society that actively aggresses against a citizen for the simple act of opting out isn't a free society, even if the vast majority of the middle class can reasonablely be considered the privilaged class.

http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html

If you don't have the right to ignore the state without that same state grabbing you and throwing you into a cage, then you are not really free no matter how much liberty the state permits.