If they were, would it help you understand? What about if they weren't?
And would you let me use the word "socialist" in any event? It doesn't seem to me like you think it is ever valid to use the word in a sentence, so how can I answer? In fact I'm amazed you were able to use the word in a sentence, given your ongoing attempts to excise it from the English language. Although, to be fair, you used it in a question, a rather rhetorical question at that, expecting to get a negative response.
I think I understand: it is possible to use the word "socialist" in a sentence. The way you do so is to say that something "is not socialist". Or, some country "is not socialist". Or you ask, with sarcasm, "are you saying that such-and-such is socialist?", and everyone is supposed to know that this is absurd.
You are nothing if not consistent with the dictionary: "socialism", as such, by the dictionary definition, doesn't exist. And to your credit you remain true to the dictionary definition. Socialism, apparently, only exists as a negative concept, in the form of Things, People And Countries Which are Not Socialist. That is the only legal way to speak about "socialism". I understand now.
P.S. If you really wanted an answer to your dismissive question, I guess I would say that, according to my understanding of them, 401K plans are slightly more fascist than anything else: they, like all "tax break" type of schemes, are threats to individuals, "Engage in this behavior (i.e. investing), or else we will engage in socialism (i.e. tax) against you!" The behavior itself, of course (investing), retains its "capitalist" flavor. But that is merely the nature of fascism. (Many if not most of the people would not be using their 401K money in precisely that way, if the government didn't promise to take a substantial percentage of it away, if they didn't....)
And besides, fascism is but a slightly tweaked version of socialism anyway.