Erm... Communism eliminates wealth, not socialism. Socialism is were the means of production are owned by the state(Transportation, Power, Water, Resources, etc.) but individuals can still hold private property. You can not say socialism eliminates wealth while communism eliminates classes - as long as there are classes, there will be varying degrees of wealth.
Speaking as a socialist, I can quite confidently say that all socialists believe in the abolition of wage-slavery. Marxists simply aren't socialists and "democratic socialism" cannot possibly work so that leaves only libertarian socialism. Being libertarians, we believe in destroying the state, not strengthening it (you're thinking of Marxism). Economic monopoly leads to wage-slavery and as such does not exist under socialism. However, all forms of socialism, including communism, recognize an individual's right to personally possess her own plot of land - so long as she does not make use of wage labor to till it (i.e. she does the work herself).
I think you are confusing socialism and communism. Communism is inherently anarchist, but socialism is not. Socialism is how we teach people to ultimately live in a communist way. As the transition between capitalism and communism, it by nature must have a state. But to pretend that any and all states protect propertied interests is false.
EDIT: Crosspost
Socialism is not a midpoint between capitalism and communism. That is an example of Marxist historical revisionism. Socialism predated Marx, as the simple viewpoint that the class system must be abolished (in other words, it was a proposed solution to the great social question). Socialism is, therefore, any ideology which seeks the abolition of economic monopoly (that is, property ownership). Since economic monopoly cowers behind the might of its protector, the state, socialism implies the destruction of the state as well. Thus, proper socialism (or, at least, realistic socialism) is inherently anarchist in nature, regardless of whether or not it is communist.
The state CAN NOT protect any interests but property. The state is a small, elite group of politicians, bureaucrats, and the like, who issue decrees on how the populace should behave. This system is inherently extremely hierarchical and authoritarian, as this is the way property designed it. The nature of capital is centralization; the more centralized society is, the easier it is to rule from the top down. The nature of a socialist society (that is, one dominated by the producers) cannot also be top-down, as such a state of affairs would rapidly result in stratification into economic classes once more (as seen in Russia). No, socialism is the opposite; bottom-up. Socialism is decentralized. The workplace is not ruled by a boss, it is administered by the workers. The commune is not ruled by a mayor, it is administered by the residents. The nation (or, in the case of socialism, anarchist Federations) is not ruled by a Congress or President, but the constituent communes.
The absurd idea that the working class can somehow take control of the government and use it to
decree socialism from the top-down is blatant evidence that what the Marxists are interested in is not the well-being of the people, but the pursuit of power, just like any other capitalist. What makes Marxism so insidious is that it uses socialist terminology and rhetoric; not only does it steal away people from revolutionary movements, but it actively attacks them, not to mention how severely we all have been discredited by the tyrannical despotism of the USSR, PRC, etc.
The Russian Revolution failed because the Bolsheviks merely usurped the Tsarist state rather than replacing it with the soviets which nominally held power. If the revolution had gone differently, and "all power" was indeed handed to the soviets, then there would have been nothing to stop these soviets from forming coordinating entities in the manner of a federal government. Which is really what Marx meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat"; he wasn't refering to an entity, as we often percieve the term "dictatorship", but to a sate of society in which the working class held power. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" merely means the self-governance of the proletariat, and does not refer to any authoritarian state, it's simply the case that many authoritarian states have falsely claimed to enacting said self-governance. They've also claimed to be democractic, too, which, apart from meaning more or less the same thing, was also a lie, so I think we can make certain assumptions about the truth of other statements they chose to make.
I think we in fact agree on many points, but have encountered a degree of miscommunication and differing understanding of terminology. and, perhaps, disagree on the role or possibility of a democratic "state", but it's nice to know that we are, at least, on the same page.
Marx was not an anarchist, hence the quarreling between Marx's and Bakunin's factions in the IWA. Since the only society wherein the producers hold political power is anarchist, (as the mere existence of a government necessarily coincides with social stratification, and it is the elite, not the general populace, which controls the state) it follows that your interpretation of Marx must be in er.
There are indeed anarchist methods of administering everything from the factory floor to planet Earth. Communes are tied together by Federations. However, these federations do not have any authority and are not in any way hierarchical. Each commune sends its delegates, and these delegates deliberate over whatever subject the meeting was called for (say, the construction of a new railroad). They will draft an agreement, but do not sign it on behalf of their commune; no, each delegation returns to the commune so that a democratic decision on the matter may be made. While there are some cases of hierarchy in anarchism, the only one I can think of at the moment is the revolutionary militia, which does use the principle of voluntary association to resolve the potential conflict involved, so that the revolution may keep fighting the forces of the counterrevolution without sacrificing its own integrity.
confused
