Repsonse to Lenin was not a real socialist

Reponse to https://twitter.com/danarel/status/808053180927909888 and the article: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2001/no-1169-december-2001/marx-and-lenins-views-contrasted

"socialism could only evolve out of the political and economic circumstances created by a fully developed capitalism"
So all the wealth has to be created by capitalism, then the socialists can take control of that wealth and redistribute.
So the socialists pick a point where they like the quality of life and accept it won't rise beyond that point.
Smells like religion to me. Maybe that's fine with you, but I think we should always continue to improve things. Also, I don't think it would be stable at all. Government intervention always fails: https://fee.org/articles/government-intervention-creates-chaos-not-jobs/

"the widest possible human co-operation"
For that to happen people have to agree. The problem is almost everyone disagree's about almost everything. There is no 'best' solution. What you think is best is affected by your personal preferences. Just like your favorite ice cream is affected by your personal preference. There are many illusions of unity. Like with religion. They use rituals like prayer to make everyone forget about their differences and feel like they all agree. This is a very enjoyable and powerful feeling, but the differences remain. Illustrated by the many sects religious groups splinter in.

There are only rare cases where a large number of people agree on a point. In a free world, that works out great. People can work together on the issue's they agree on and the issue's they disagree on don't matter. But the existence of a government creates a massive threat where someone disagreeing with you might convince the government to make you do what you think is wrong. This is why people are more and more polarized, they are afraid of other people using the government to fuck up their lives. In socialism this ends up producing terrible results. Because the 'community' can't decide anything, they disagree on everything. So you must create a special group of people that will make the decisions: government.

"Marx claimed the wages system was the quintessential instrument of capitalist exploitation of the working class."
Wrong, people choose to take a wage because it has benefits to the risks of owning your own means of production.

"In a socialist society, he affirmed, the state, as the government of people, would give way to a simple, democratic 'administration of things'."
This is in conflict with how reality works. What should be administered? And who should pay for the administration? Even these basic questions require some sort of organizing.

I have a lot more disagreements, but I'll focus:
"a universal classless, wageless and moneyless"
Class is determined by property, money is a form of property. So in a way you're advocating for a society without property. That means I can take your stuff any time I like, it's not yours anyway. Why would anyone then work? They could just take the stuff they need. Why produce anything if it's just going to get taken?

"in accordance with their mental and/or physical abilities to the production and distribution of the needs of their society and in which everyone would have free and equal access to their needs"
Another massive problem. Who determine's what a person's capabilities are? Who determines what a person's need is? You end up punishing the working by taking their stuff and rewarding the lazy by giving them free stuff. That's social engineering with terrible consequences.

You claim that Russia was not the right place for socialism to rise and it therefore doesn't disprove socialism. But why did full socialism first rise in those less educated places? When the more educated people, who better understand capitalism, manage to resist socialism... It suggests to me Marx really didn't understand what he was talking about.

Socialism has risen in many more places, all over the world.
- North Korea is a hell hole. While South Korea is doing great, with a nuclear threat and a massive country (China) who hates it, both nearby.
- The jewish kibbutz where small socialist societies that did great. I think their size was an advantage. A big problem in socialism is motivation, they had religion and enemies everywhere around to keep them motivated. But even they are introducing free market principles: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/kibbutz.html
- Cuba has lots of socialist countries to it's south. Much more than South Korea has kapitalist countries nearby. Yet it's an utter disaster. So are those other socialist countries.