Why, what? Why are most hardcore socialists illiberal? Probably some type of selection effect, I guess. Or maybe because they've lost hope that people can be made to 'see the light'. Or why hasn't socialism been really tried yet? I dunno, really. Neither of these have anything to do with the observation that it's only in theory that a socialist society can exist with vigorous disagreement in it.
I'd say most people, world-wide, are illiberal. Liberalism is largely a phenomenon of educated classes in first world democracies. This does not describe the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population. That's why the Democrats suck so bad at electoral politics and why most socialists who hold out hope for electoral politics usually focus their efforts on building class based coalitions by appealing to the material interests of as many people as possible. Labor unions are almost always vital to this process. Their heyday is long gone in most countries.
All socialism means is a belief in the idea that workers should control the means of production. It isn't incompatible with any other political belief. You can make arguments about whether or not any other policy proposed within a given polity will either strengthen or weaken workers control, but they are beside the point. I could easily envision a thoroughly socialist and democratic American society voting to continue its foreign policy with respect to empire and its various machinations of colonialism. Unwinding the material well being of the average American from these practices would be a long process with no small measure of danger. Even Bernie Sanders only purposes very modest cuts to the military budget, and he has NOTHING to say about the activities of America's intelligence agencies.
These conversations all bog down because the two sides aren't using the same working definition of socialism. If someone who tells you they are a socialist and can at least name drop the correct authors says something to the effect of "socialism hasn't been tried" they are not giving you a no true scotsman type of argument. What they are communicating is the fact that workers had little to no control over the means of production in any nation which our media, schools, etc. deem socialist. This is especially true of the two most important cases: the Soviet Union and China.
In the case of the Soviet Union the Bolsheviks more or less back-stabbed all their collaborators and installed their own dictatorship. Mao was a personality cult who lead a successful peasant revolt. These facts are not an argument against socialism since I doubt anyone needs convinced that a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist is just as capable of back stabbing you or setting off a chain of events which murders millions. Humanity suffers under the fact that those who will seek and are able to obtain power are frequently capable of abusing it in horrific ways. This is only constrained by institutional limits on power which are custom more than force. Violation of institutional limits on power are a threat under any system. These things aren't a real argument, pro or con, for any political or economic system.
Modern day Germany and Sweden are more socialist then either China or the Soviet Union ever were. In those countries, by law, labor gets seats on the board of their corporations. The balance of power at work and in economic life is far more favorable to workers. Historically the closest thing to socialism the world has ever seen was Spain prior to its civil war. A democratically elected government was overthrown by force and the powers of the world mostly sat on the sideline or supported the coup. Popular support for the socialist government was so strong, globally, that thousands from around the world voluntarily traveled to Spain to help defend it.
One of the facts of history that capitalist hegemony has erased is that Communist parties were common, and often successful, all over democratic Europe. They were destroyed by force in the run up to World War II. The idea that Communism is incompatible with liberal democracy is false because there are real, historical counterexamples.
Being able to erase historical facts like these from the consciousness of the public and using terms like socialism in deliberately misleading ways is how the educational system and the media propagandize the American public against the concept of socialism. The use of the term in American political discourse would fit right into the world of
1984.
