Hasn't the real socialism that Karl Marx mentioned come?

In the academic works of Karl Marx, it is stated that socialism will come after capitalism. The socialism described by Karl Marx was somewhat different from the socialism practiced in China and the SSCB, that is, in the Soviet Union. It is very clear that the socialism practiced in the SSCB and China is different from the capitalism stated by Karl Marx because it existed before capitalism came and that this move to socialism was a hasty move. Some thinkers, on the other hand, state in their academic works that socialism will never come after capitalism because there is a deficiency in Karl Marx's discourses. Marx's theory aims for a classless, stateless society. However, the paths he proposed for the transition to such a society (e.g., the dictatorship of the proletariat) remained vague and abstract. For this reason, those who wanted to put Marx's ideas into practice often had to add their own interpretations; This has led to the theory moving away from its essence. The collective way of life envisaged by socialism requires individuals to prioritize the interests of society over their own; However, individualistic tendencies and the quest for power have made it difficult for these ideals to be realized. Even in societies based on a strong principle of equality, hierarchies of leadership and authority have been inevitable. There are many social scientists who think that socialism will bear the traces of capitalism when it comes, since each person in the society will approach certain success criteria differently and will be successful in the subject they are talented in, and again, the success criterion, differences, status and private property will be valid in determining status, and I feel closest to this idea. But my advice is, don't accept an ideology 100 percent of the time, and put the information through your own mental filter and create one or more perspectives for yourself. Bakunin argued that a balance must be struck between individual freedom and social equality. However, he criticized authority and the capitalist system due to his concerns that individual differences and abilities could create social class or hierarchy within society. In this context, he may have partially pointed to the idea that traces of capitalism can be preserved by individual differences. Karl Marx stated in his academic sources that "If all social classes and statuses were abolished, society would be equal"; But I think this discourse is fanciful. We've always talked about male social scientists, so let's talk about Emma Goldman, a female sociologist. Goldman defended the right of the individual to realize his or her potential and creativity. According to him, society should not suppress the originality of individuals. However, this means that some individuals may naturally make a difference because they have stronger skills or resources. Goldman used to argue that capitalism forces individuals to compete, and that this competition leaves its mark not only on economic systems, but also on individual relationships and cultural structure. According to him, even in a socialist or anarchist society, it is not possible to completely eliminate individual differences; This is due to the natural differences and abilities of people. In fact, I did not mention it above so that the subject would not be confused, but there is an ideology that Emma Goldman's ideas may be close to. For Goldman, freedom came first; But how to balance this freedom with social equality was a constant question. He would oppose authoritarian control of this situation, even if unequal consequences arise due to people's individual skills and desires. Goldman advocated that a society be organized in such a way that everyone could realize their potential. However, he would also admit that this does not mean absolute equality. His anarchism envisaged a society based on the free will of individuals; However, he thought that in this society, the consequences of individual differences and talents should be managed fairly. Kropotkin is a thinker who tried to put anarchist theory on scientific foundations. According to him, mutual aid in nature and society is the strongest social bond. According to Kropotkin, the capitalist system and the state create inequality and exploitation by disrupting this natural solidarity. Even if socialism comes and the anarchist system continues, as long as individuals have individual talents and achievements, they will have the elements of capitalism in the new system. I've heard that there are sociologists who are against this idea. I explained the dynamics of socialism and anarchism from the perspectives of various social scientists; We are going back to the topic of socialism. When we come to Gramsci's ideology, he argues that socialism is not limited to the economic system, but also involves cultural and ideological transformation. For example, Durkheim emphasized the importance of social order and solidarity and advocated a balance between individual freedom and social control. According to him, anarchism can lead to the collapse of social norms and order. Durkheim argued that societies need certain rules and authority in order to function in a healthy way. He states that anarchism can lead to chaos and individual selfishness by weakening social solidarity. I will also include the perspective of a sociologist who opposes the criteria for success. Bookchin is a thinker who has made important contributions to communalist anarchism and social ecology. While success in capitalist society is defined by an understanding based on competition and hierarchy, he argues that such individual success criteria should be eliminated in the communal society proposed by Bookchin. In his opinion, social relations should be based on solidarity and mutual aid. Bookchin can be an example of sociologists who oppose success criteria; I wish it were, but in this ideology it seems to me that this is a critique of capitalism that the dreamer, the child who scored twenty points on an exam and failed his course, says when he cries and gets upset. Another example would be the English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer. Spencer sees anarchism as a movement that takes back the process of social evolution. According to him, a certain order and authority are necessary to ensure social order. Anarchism impedes the natural evolution of society and prevents individuals from developing freely. I want to say again that an ideology is not 100 percent true; The important thing is to bring these ideologies or all of the other ideologies together and think about them and draw perspectives. That was it for today's blog post. See you in our next blog post.