1) "When an Athenian once reproached Diogenes, saying that he was always praising

the Spartans, yet did not care to go and live among them, he replied, 'But a
doctor, being a man who is responsible for bringing people to good health, does not
carry out his business among those who are healthy.'"

2) People hate working so much they feel it's unfair that someone could possibly
get any help to live without having to go through the same torture they did.

And instead of being mad at how the system is set up, they're mad at the people who
don't (or more often, cannot) toil like they have.

3) R. Buckminster Fuller �We should do away with the absolutely specious notion
that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of
us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The
youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a
living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be
employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory
he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people
making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of
people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were
thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.�

4) Seeing as how Marx's deduction of the general trend of socialist production came
from his analyses of capitalism and his critique of political economy, none of
these states "aligned" with Marx's conception of socialism, as elaborated, most
notably, in The Critique of the Gotha Program.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of

production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the
labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a
material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society,
individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a
component part of total labor.

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV

Many neglect this point of a rejection of commodity production, exchange, and wage-
labor. Why does Marx say this? And why do communists of the Marxist tradition
believe it to be correct? Because wage-labor is the characteristic aspect of
capitalism, the germ from which all capitalist relations grow.

Since 1844, in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx said this:

Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a
commodity � and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.

...

Through estranged, alienated labor, then, the worker produces the relationship to
this labor of a man alien to labor and standing outside it. The relationship of the
worker to labor creates the relation to it of the capitalist (or whatever one
chooses to call the master of labor). Private property is thus the product, the
result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of
the worker to nature and to himself.

Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor,
i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man.

...
We also understand, therefore, that wages and private property are identical.
Indeed, where the product, as the object of labor, pays for labor itself, there the
wage is but a necessary consequence of labor�s estrangement. Likewise, in the wage
of labor, labor does not appear as an end in itself but as the servant of the
wage...

An enforced increase of wages (disregarding all other difficulties, including the

fact that it would only be by force, too, that such an increase, being an anomaly,
could be maintained) would therefore be nothing but better payment for the slave,
and would not win either for the worker or for labor their human status and
dignity.

Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon [and modern

cooperativists and social-democrats], only transforms the relationship of the
present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society
would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.

Wages are a direct consequence of estranged labor, and estranged labor is the
direct cause of private property. The downfall of the one must therefore involve
the downfall of the other.

Marx, Estranged Labor, 1844

(note that private property was synonymous with capital, for Marx, and not the
lexical definition of private property today as one's possessions)

From 1844 to Capital, Marx never strayed on this position:

The capitalist epoch is therefore characterised by this, that labour-power takes in

the eyes of the labourer himself the form of a commodity which is his property; his
labour consequently becomes wage-labour. On the other hand, it is only from this
moment that the produce of labour universally becomes a commodity.

Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Ch. 6, n. 4, 1867

Marx explains this point earlier in his notebook Results of the Direct Production
Process, that wage-labor and commodity production are one and the same as
conditions for capitalism:

Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker

has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the
naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis of production (India). From
the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity.

Marx, Results of the Direct Production Process, 1864

From commodity production comes commodity circulation. And so, in Capital, Marx
writes:

The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of

commodities, their circulation, and that more developed form of their circulation
called commerce, these form the historical ground-work from which it rises.

Marx, Capital Vol. I, Ch. 4, 1867

Finally, we have capital, and we are back to capitalist production and the
accumulation of capital. Ergo, Marx says this (in which he may as well be
criticizing market-socialists):

The proper reply to them is: that exchange value or, more precisely, the money
system is in fact the system of equality and freedom, and that the disturbances
which they encounter in the further development of the system are disturbances
inherent in it, are merely the realization of equality and freedom, which prove to
be inequality and unfreedom. It is just as pious as it is [foolish] to wish that
exchange value would not develop into capital, nor labour which produces exchange
value into wage labour. What divides these gentlemen from the bourgeois apologists
is, on one side, their sensitivity to the contradictions included in the system; on
the other, the utopian inability to grasp the necessary difference between the real
and the ideal form of bourgeois society, which is the cause of their desire to
undertake the superfluous business of realizing the ideal expression again, which
is in fact only the inverted projection [Lichtbild] of this reality.

Marx, Grundrisse, Notebook II, 1857

And so, Amadeo Bordiga (a leading communist within the Italian Left), summarizes
Marx's argument as such:

In this fictitious programme [i.e. the programmes of cooperativists, market-

socialists, etc.], not only production is not carried out by society for society,
but by trade unions for trade unions, but commodities continue to be produced;
meaning that production is still non-socialist, since each article of consumption
transferred from one trade-union to another does so as a commodity, and since this
cannot occur without the existence of a monetary equivalent, it is necessarily
transferred, as such, to each individual producer. As is always the case in these
utopias of undiminished labour, the wage system still survives, and the
accumulation of capital in the hands of the autonomous trades unions, and
eventually into those of private individuals, also survives. If our critique has
relied largely on a �reductio ad absurdum� approach, it is entirely the petty-
bourgeois content of all these various utopias which is to blame.

Amadeo Bordiga, The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism Ch. 3, 1957

In conclusion:

Those who have taken up these ideologies have shown their total inability, both
theoretically and in practice, to struggle for anything beyond a pale imitation of
bourgeois society. What they really want is their own autonomy from the power of
the class party and the revolutionary dictatorship.

Amadeo Bordiga, The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism Ch. 2, 1957

These states you list retained commodity production, wage-labor, capital, value,
and exchange.

5) Being a Millennial today feels like showing up at the party an hour after it's
over and having the host hand you a mop and tell you you're lucky to have been
invited.