True Left

A major problem is that Marxism only considers consequentially post-capitalist systems as candidates for socialism, because in Marx's worldview, socialism is what happens after people have tried and are fed up with capitalism.

They technically acknowledged that pre-state hunter-gatherer societies theoretically resembled a communist society:

The original idea of primitive communism is rooted in ideas of the noble savage through the works of Rousseau[6] and the early anthropology of Morgan and Parker.[7][8][9] Engels offered the first detailed elaboration upon that of primitive communism in 1884, with the publication of The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.[7][10] Engels categorised primitive communist societies into two phases, the "wild" (hunter-gatherer) phase that lacked permanent superstructure and had close relationships with the natural world, and the "barbarian" phase which was structure like the populations ancient Germany[8] beyond the borders of the Roman Empire and the Indigenous peoples of North America before the colonisation by Europeans.[11] Marx and Engels used the term more broadly than Marxists did later, and applied it not only to hunter-gatherers but also to some subsistence agriculture communities.[12] There is also no agreement among later scholars, including Marxists, on the historical extent, or longevity, of primitive communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

But I think you are correct that they would not have considered these or later state societies as candidates for being able to live in "real" socialism, since they did not meet the economic conditions to "progress" to the higher stage of "real" socialism. In other words, "primitive communists" could not remain primitive forever, and thus their forms of government were not taken as serious candidates for a stable socialism.


Apparently "woke" Communists, however, have attempted to take these "primitives" more seriously. I.e., such scholars are moving away from orthodox Marxism to True Leftism:

Debate
[...]
Use of the term "primitive"

"Primitive" in recent anthropological and social studies has begun to fall out of use due to racial stereotypes surrounding the ideas of what "primitive" is.[34][113][114][51][50][115] Such a move has been supported by indigenous peoples who have faced racial stereotyping and violence due to being viewed as "primitive".[116][117] Due to this the term "primitive communism" may be replaced by terms such as Pre-Marxist communism.[118]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Use_of_the_term_%22primitive%22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism

It is only after they abandon the communist definition of what "socialism" means that these scholars will actually get anywhere.

----

I think your definition of socialism is great and concise, although this raises the question as to what "merit" means.

Socialism is the belief that state intervention is essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of the state to so intervene. It is based on the view that the stateless system (e.g. free markets) is rigged against true merit in favour of non-merit-based competitive advantages, a problem which can therefore only be remedied by adding rules to the system, where the rules have been derived with the promotion of merit in mind, and function as to nullify the non-merit-based competitive advantages.

Obviously, a rightist would disagree with socialism entirely since they believe an individual possessing a natural competitive advantage _is_ merit/virtue in and of itself.

I think how one defines merit traces back to how they define the "social idea" behind their socialism. The implementation of political socialism is what is necessary to achieve the "social idea" of making society meritorious. I think in this sense, the early-20th-century vocabulary "social idea" is synonymous with today's vocabulary "social justice". (In the sense that today "social justice" is more than just a word--it means the core emotion of what moves the passion of sincere leftists; the abstract animating force behind the political movement).

Ok, so we use state power to achieve social justice. But what does that look like? I suppose for communists, that is (exclusively?) economic. The economic have-nots receive "justice" by taking a turn as the slave master over the land-owners and business-owners (which actually includes non-evil people and people who managed to build a successful business due to actual talent, as well as non-productive parasitic elites like financial speculators and talentless hacks who inherited great wealth). As Hitler recognized, that is not "real" socialism. That is not real social justice; that does not really improve the fabric of society.

I am sure there are other definitions from the main site which concisely summarize what we mean by social justice. Off the top of my head, could we say that to us, true social justice means complete freedom, which requires eliminating all forms of exploitation (to humans and non-humans), which necessarily entails the biological improvement of the bloodlines that comprise society in order to make this condition possible. State intervention in economics alone (i.e. communism) will not restore merit to society. State intervention in education/culture alone (i.e. PC liberalism) will not restore merit to society. Only state intervention in biological quality (i.e. National Socialism) will be able to restore merit to society.


----

Also, here is a Hitler speech showing how he agrees entirely with your definition of socialism. Competitive "might" is not identical with merit, and therefore the state must use its power to defend merit and welfare of society a a whole.

I will post another quote further down how Hitler says Jesus is one of the originators of real Socialism, thereby acknowledging Socialism is indeed a very ancient concept.


Speech in Munich. March 27, 1924

... Might is never identical with right.

Frederick the Great once said something which clearly defined the relationship of might and right. He said that the law is worth nothing if it is not defended by the sword. In other words, the law was always worthless unless protected by might.
[...]
Whatever remnants of authority we still possess today can be traced ultimately to the beginnings of the present Reich; it was Frederick William who established the authority of the state. It was the great king who said of himself: "I am the servant of the State!" This applies equally to them all, even the old heroic Kaiser himself.

Today we all still benefit from this authority of the state. The authority of the state was identical with the well-being of the People, it was not something which was prejudicial to the well-being of the People. Carlyle emphasizes that Frederick the Great devoted his entire life's work to the service of his People.

----


Here's a modified tree of leftism. Definitions are important, but I don't think our re-classification of Marxism/Communism as merely one form of Socialism will be intuitive to the public at large unless they are able to see things in a chart/graph. The things I list under True Leftism include the ideologies we wish to salvage or draw inspiration from, even if they aren't 100% in agreement with us on all issues. What do you think about this?


Tier 0. (Temperament)
   - Leftism

Tier 1. (Abstract/general attitudes)
   - Socialism (further expanded below)
   - Enlightenment-based forms of liberalism(?) (not listed below)
   - others?

Tier 2. (Ideological theories)
   - (a) True Leftism
   - (b) Marxism
   - (c) authentic Fascism(?)

   -- (d?) 'Social Democracy' (including Sanders-style "progressivism" in the US) would be placed separately with dashed lines extending from both Socialism and Enlightenment-based liberalism
   -- (e?) the historic Enlightenment-based "Utopian Socialism" could be placed similarly(?)

Tier 3. (Political movements addressing the problems defined by the ideological theories)
   - (a1) National Socialism
   - (a2) Platonic Republicanism
   - (a3) early pre-Marx socialist states/leaders who did not have an explicit ideology
   - (a4) individual manifestations of True Leftism or small personality-centered movements which did not attain power
   - (a5?) religious socialism

   - (b1) Communism
   - (b2) 'Anarcho-Communism'

   - (c1) Italian school of Fascism(?)
   - (c2) Juche(?)

   -- (d?) Socialism with Chinese Characteristics--and other "fellow traveller" forms of Socialism which have clearly begun to forge their own path distinct from Marxism--could be placed separately with dashed lines extending from both True Leftism and Marxism(?)

Tier 4. (Specific implementation of the political movement to govern based on the specific circumstances of a country and time period)
   - (a1) Hitlerism
   - (a2) ? not enacted by any actual regime
   - (a3) Mauryan-Empire-ism, Julius-Caesar-ism, and other examples
   - (a4) John Brown, Malcolm X, etc.

   - (b1) Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism/etc.

   - (c1) Mussolini-ism

   - (d) Dengism, Chavismo, etc.


----------

I have included authentic Fascism under Socialism, as they considered themselves to be derived from socialism.

For example:

Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works.[38] During this period Mussolini considered himself a Marxist and he described Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."[39]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Political_journalist,_intellectual_and_socialist
(Note how Mussolini considered Marx as merely one theorist of Socialism. By definition, Communists consider Marx as the greatest Socialist theorist and ultimate originator of all Socialism. It would make no sense for Mussolini to qualify Marx as merely one of the greatest unless it was clear to him that Marx was merely one of many who outlined different interpretations of Socialism.)

After being ousted by the Italian Socialist Party for his support of Italian intervention, Mussolini made a radical transformation, ending his support for class conflict and joining in support of revolutionary nationalism transcending class lines.[9] He formed the interventionist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia and the Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista ("Revolutionary Fasces for International Action") in October 1914.[46]
[...]
On 5 December 1914, Mussolini denounced orthodox socialism for failing to recognize that the war had made national identity and loyalty more significant than class distinction.[9]
[...]
Mussolini continued to promote the need of a revolutionary vanguard elite to lead society. He no longer advocated a proletarian vanguard, but instead a vanguard led by dynamic and revolutionary people of any social class.[55] Though he denounced orthodox socialism and class conflict, he maintained at the time that he was a nationalist socialist and a supporter of the legacy of nationalist socialists in Italy's history, such as Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Carlo Pisacane. As for the Italian Socialist Party and its support of orthodox socialism, he claimed that his failure as a member of the party to revitalize and transform it to recognize the contemporary reality revealed the hopelessness of orthodox socialism as outdated and a failure.[56] This perception of the failure of orthodox socialism in the light of the outbreak of World War I was not solely held by Mussolini; other pro-interventionist Italian socialists such as Filippo Corridoni and Sergio Panunzio had also denounced classical Marxism in favor of intervention.[57]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Beginning_of_Fascism_and_service_in_World_War_I


For further information on leftist Fascism, I would recommend looking into the works of scholar A. James Gregor. Throughout his career, he wrote extensively on Fascism, Marxism, Socialism, and comparisons of them. Most importantly, he seems sympathetic to Fascism (particularly in his younger days), meaning he is not just a rightist attempting to insult leftism by calling Fascism leftist.

Gregor argued that scholars do not agree on the definition of fascism, stating in 1997 that "Almost every specialist has his own interpretation."[6] He argued that Marxist movements of the 20th century discarded Marx and Engels and instead adopted theoretical categories and political methods much like those of Mussolini.[7] In The Faces of Janus (2000) Gregor asserted that the original "Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy's intelligentsia of the Left."[8] In Young Mussolini (1979), Gregor describes Fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism."[9] According to Gregor, many revolutionary movements have assumed features of paradigmatic Fascism, but none are its duplicate. He said that post-Maoist China displays many of its traits. He denied that paradigmatic Fascism can be responsibly identified as a form of right-wing extremism.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._James_Gregor#Study_of_fascism

On November 24, 1914, when he was expelled from the Socialist Party, Mussolini insisted that his expulsion could not divest him of his ‘socialist faith.’ He made the subtitle of his new paper, Il Popolo d’Italia, ‘A Socialist Daily.’
[...]
By the time Spirito delivered his communications at the Convention of 1932, these sentiments had united with neo-idealist totalitarian aspirations. The result was variously identified as ‘Fascist communism,’ Fascist Bolshevism’ or ‘Fascist socialism.’
[...]
Mussolini was a well-informed and convinced Marxist. His ultimate political convictions represent a reform of classical Marxism in the direction of a restoration of its Hegelian elements.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A._James_Gregor