"Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationalized or socialized..."
One of the earliest (and now largely forgotten) criticisms of Marx came from the American philosopher Benjamin Tucker, who facilely forsaw the rise of the communist implementations as an unavoidable consequence of Marxist socialism. So Tucker might argue that even a socialism as "modern socialists" would inevitably result in the same. Although this argument takes off further along that a partial state socialism, the crux of the idea of state expansionism and its effect on individual rights is salient:
First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly. Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx.
He was writing this a full 20 years before the communist states came into existence.
State socialism is arguably not Marxist, but Leninist. Many Marxist will also disagree with the term state socialism (many describe those regimes as state capitalist, on the basis that the organisation of capital remains as it does in market capitalist countries - de facto if not de jure concentrated on the hand of a small upper class that is exploiting the working class for profit).
But the criticism above seems to me to even describe "state socialism" in a way that is even largely incompatible with Leninist theory (though not with Stalinist practice).
keep in mind that Lenin was in his late teens when Tucker wrote this, so Leninism couldn't have existed as a commonly accepted political philosophy. For convenience, I've only taken the end of the Tuckerian analysis, so there are a few steps from Marxism to get to this point. This was a direct extrapolation and direct criticism of Marxism, and unless Tucker was a time traveller, it could not have been anything else (much less Stalinism).
It would be valid to invoke some sort of mechanism that prevents Marxism from getting to the point of state socialism where this quote takes off; but of course, empirically, Tucker's model seems to have been shown true in a few cases, so I would suggest there would need to be a heavier burden on describing exactly what needs to be different, and why.
Tucker was way ahead of his time. He was (to what degree of animosity I don't know, but I imagine friendly rivalry) a competitor of the more well-known Lysander Spooner. I think they largely agreed on a lot of things, but there was a major wedge between them; Spooner was for a strong Intellectual Property regime, and Tucker rejected IP altogether. A lot of the open culture/proprietary culture arguments that we see now that have cropped up as extensions of the Open Source movement are basically rehashings of the Tucker-Spooner dialogs.
One of the earliest (and now largely forgotten) criticisms of Marx came from the American philosopher Benjamin Tucker, who facilely forsaw the rise of the communist implementations as an unavoidable consequence of Marxist socialism. So Tucker might argue that even a socialism as "modern socialists" would inevitably result in the same. Although this argument takes off further along that a partial state socialism, the crux of the idea of state expansionism and its effect on individual rights is salient:
First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly. Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx.
He was writing this a full 20 years before the communist states came into existence.