One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.
When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?
When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.
And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.
So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?
Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.