Once you cite e.g. Marx & Engels you are no more citing socialism -
Absurd.
....but an already enhanced version towards Communism - e,g, Marx Communist manifesto from 1848.
Socialism does not inherently focus onto a work class that rules everything - that is Communism.
Socialism is the socialization and democratization of production. Productive forces (workers) control and own the means of production
(facilities, machinery. etc) collectively. Do you want capitalist masters owning the means of production and lording themselves over everyone, for monetary gain
(profits)? That always leads to exploitation, gross inequality and a government that serves private vested interests at the expense of the public.
Communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for a means of market exchange, like money. Socialism is the process that leads to that, and which can employ a state apparatus, markets, and money. Socioeconomic classes are the first to go in a developing socialist economy, evolving into high communism. Advanced technology inevitably leads socialism into high communism.
Socialism describes any political or economic theory that says the community, rather than individuals, should own and manage property and natural resources. And the community does not exist primarily only out of factory-workers - especially not nowadays.
Not necessarily. In socialism, there is a distinction between private and personal property. Property that is used for production and to exploit others is "private" . Personal property can be anything from your toothbrush to your private residence
(your home). A socialist-run government can very easily, cancel all of the mortgage debt overnight and hand everyone the personal ownership of their house, condo..etc. That doesn't violate socialism. In a socialist society, you have a human right to housing and are less likely to lose your house than under a capitalist-run government that will strip you of everything if you fail to pay taxes. Don't pay your property taxes and you'll find out who actually owns your home, under capitalism.
Marx & Engels focused their thoughts onto an existing pure Capitalism - run on the backs of exploited workers due to the then industrial revolution. That all these non-laborious people also profited from pure capitalism - known as the Bourgeoisie - made them an additional enemy or target for Communist ideals.
The big-money capitalist masters i.e. bourgeoisie, are just as destructive today as they were back then, if not more. We're on the brink of fighting WW3 with Russia and China, due to the pursuit of profits and power. The war profiteers love war, due to how lucrative it is for them. These capitalists are sucking the world dry like vampires and you complain about demonstrations? Equating mere civil disobedience to terrorism (the OKC bombing). Odd to say the least.
Thomas Moore in the 16th century was one of those that proposed in UTOPIA - that money has been abolished and people live and work communally.
We're not in the 16th century anymore, so comparing us to them, hundreds of years ago is irrelevant, as to whether we can establish a high-communist society today in the 21st century.
Early socialists like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier offered up their own models for social organization based on cooperation rather than competition. While Saint-Simon argued for a system where the state controls production and distribution for the benefit of all society’s members, both Fourier and Owen (in France and Britain, respectively) proposed systems based on small collective communities, not a centralized state.
Marx and Engels wrote about the "withering away" of the state apparatus, as production technology becomes more automated and personal. Nothing you said in that paragraph contradicts Marxian socialism. Where you and I differ is in the process that leads to that "withering away" of the state and decentralized collective. As we move away from for-profit production, into a non-profit socialist system, the state still functions and contributes to the planning production and development of productive forces. All of this is achieved through a democratic government under the control of the proletariat or working class.
Robert Owen, who had owned and operated textile mills in Scotland, headed to the United States in 1825 to launch an experimental community in New Harmony, Indiana. His planned commune was based on the principles of self-sufficiency, cooperation and public ownership of property. The experiment soon failed, and Owen lost much of his fortune. More than 40 small cooperative agricultural communities inspired by Fourier’s theories, were founded across the United States. One of these, based in Red Bank, New Jersey, lasted into the 1930s.
The Christian Bruderhof, is a good example of Christian socialists, successfully maintaining a community for over a century:
Therefore as to how socialism is supposed to be defined as a final version, was never accomplished.
There are core distinctive values that are universal to socialism. Without these traits, socialism loses its character. The exploitation of workers by privately owned, for-profit, non-democratic-run enterprises, is rejected by all secular socialists. Christian socialists are less concerned with democracy than secular socialists, but they nonetheless also have a rich tradition of democracy in their communities and not exploiting workers
(their brothers and sisters/comrades in Christ). There are universal "distinctives" for socialism, so your assertion that the definition of socialism is completely amorphous and relative is incorrect.
Marx & Engels simply picked up on all these socialistic "ideas" ...
Everybody "picked up" ideas from others, and then decides whether such ideas make sense to them. Marx and Engels developed a materialist-dialectic which describes why we organize production as we do and what are the socioeconomic consequences of such modes of production. They made an important contribution to the development of socialism in the modern age, allowing us to identify the problems with capitalism and how to replace it with a socialized, democratized, non-profit system of production.
....then determining by themselves that it is the worker class that should own and run everything -
It's self-evident that the workers should be in control of their own labor and what it produces. Do you prefer capitalist exploitation and totalitarianism in the production of goods and services that we consume? A small wealthy elite of capitalist masters taking control of the government with their money, to serve their vested interests at everyone's expense? As I mentioned earlier, we're now on the brink of destroying everything on planet Earth in a world war, due to the private pursuit of profits. It's due to capitalism, that we're not investing heavily in cleaner power production, and continue depending on fossil fuels. Literally, millions of people are dying of starvation, lack of access to clean water, and from many treatable illnesses, because it's not commercially viable to help them. Isn't that violence?
That's worse violence than what you identified as violent in your last post. You consider mere demonstrations, civil disobedience, equal to the OKC bombing. How does that make sense?
including the usage of money - and thus developing Communism. Actually I am sure that you know all this.
Money is the means of exchange in a marketplace. You can't have markets without wage labor or paying consumers who earn a wage. Advance automation and artificial intelligence will eventually reduce waged-labor to a point that markets are unsustainable and superfluous. When that happens, there is no more need for money. We're now seeing the beginning of advanced automation:
We're living in a very unique time in history, witnessing the transition from one system of production to another one. That usually doesn't occur for thousands of years. It's happening now in front of our eyes.
