You make a great deal about the inductive inevitability of your conclusions, but what you want is guiding what you see. You like capitalism and capitalists, you see yourself as one emotionally even if you realize intellectually you're not. This psychosocial bias determines what you know, not the other way round. Hear me out.

It cannot be denied. The Communist dictatorships we saw last century were horrible tyrannies, but there were really only two of them: Russia and China. And both of them were based on the same model, Soviet Leninism. All the others, the European satellites, Cuba, North Korea, South East Asia, and all the rest, were directly influenced if not actually put in place by the USSR and the PRC. Its not surprising they were all barely distinguishable from one another.

You take this as evidence that any form of socialism is a necessary and sufficient condition for tyranny, but that is a demonstrably false statement. If it were true, then any state with any socialist policies would have to be a tyranny, and any state without socialist policies could not possibly be a brutal dictatorship.

Since ALL states have some form of socialism, and some form of coercion, however minor, embedded in them, this criterion is obviously in error. Most of the states we see throughout history were tyrannies, in fact, ALL of them were if you consider the condition of some of their minorities, classes, and conquered subjects. Yea, verily, even the good ole USA. Socialism as we know it in Russia and China didn't even exist, anywhere, a century ago, although there have always been tyrannies. As far as laissez-faire capitalism is concerned, it has never existed either. Capitalism has been regulated by the State, it has been supported by state policy, and it has manipulated the State for its own purposes, even in post-colonial North America. Free markets are for small town entrepreneurs and piss-ant shopkeepers, not for Capitalism. And even perfectly free markets don't stay that way for long. They are routinely undermined by marketeers. All that competition, after all, does have winners and losers.

So lets be charitable, lets allow that even though Socialism may not cause brutal dictatorships to arise, perhaps the two are correlated somehow. Wrong again. As we have, seen, there are historical and contemporary examples of non-socialist states which are tyrannies, and of socialist states which are not, as is most of Western Europe and the former British Empire and many other nations today. Even the USA, which you insist is becoming more socialistic by the minute, has become much more democratic than when it was founded, and presumably, untainted by any collectivist contagion. The more socialist we get the freer we are. It may not be causal, but they are correlated.

In fact, I submit that unless you selectively cherry-pick your examples, (as you have a lamentable tendency to do, as if nobody was paying attention) there is absolutely no causal relation between tyranny and socialism, or between capitalism and freedom. The perfect example is the Nazi/Stalinist conflict of the 30s and 40s: A Communist dictatorship and a highly corporate and capitalist Fascism locked in deadly ideological struggle. To the victims of these regimes, there was little difference in result, but to those in charge, to the rest of the world, and to everyone but you, they were complete ideological opposites as to origin and policy. I know you don't share that opinion, that you prefer to call them both socialist and then move quickly on before anyone notices what you're doing, but you can't; it would put the lie to your whole causal hypothesis. Whether you admit it or not, Nazi Fascism and Soviet Communism were equally terrible, but they were at complete opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. They are Capitalism and Socialism carried to their logical extremes. Yes. Capitalism CAN be carried to an extreme.

Tyranny arises from too much power concentrated in too few hands. And it doesn't matter if that power arises from control of the means of production and distribution by private monopolies and oligarchies, or political power which has seized the instruments of the State. In fact, I believe there really is no difference between the two. The Communists just have baggy suits.

You may argue that free markets prevent monopolies from occurring but history tells us otherwise. Free markets don't necessarily prevent monopolies any more than free
elections necessarily prevent dictatorships. The only thing that we know really works (even if it doesn't work perfectly) is what we have in the USA and in most of Europe and the world today: Capitalist economics moderated and tempered by State regulation and a social welfare safety net. And that seems to be what you are determined to dismantle.