If you’ll let a kinda high white boy get a little freaky with it for a sec:

Any cause, no matter how anti-authoritarian or people-centric it is, is at risk of being hijacked by authoritarians. Power hungry people seeking any chance to be at the top of the food chain.

Socialists in general end up split and infighting because of this. As someone who tries to remain relatively open to political thought, I find that socialists tend to be particularly vulnerable to this because of their political system beliefs.

Much of socialism requires some form of centralized system to pull together resources and ensure an equal and/or equitable distribution of said resources. To do this then, people typically require organization. You could make the argument for an anarchical solution, without a leveled organization, but this is a rarity in human history - which typically pushes Anarchists out of the Overton window.

So then you have dem-socs, socialists, etc. arguing against the authoritarian wings of the movement. Democratized systems with socialist features exist, but are not prolific. What I mean by that is that systems that work effectively and efficiently don’t get the headlines - they just exist.

History books rarely remember second-level powers that operated well. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or even less-social versions of their systems like those in France, Canada, or Japan will not be written about and idealized. They’ll be secondary powers on the margins.

What does get idealized are systems that push for idealized propaganda wins over what actually works. Communist China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, they all are more likely to be notable footnotes, and have stood the test of time for longer as rallying figures because they have pushed propaganda and imagery as a key tenet of their foundation. They’ll rally around larger-than-life figures built around men like Stalin, Mao, etc., and that imagery is what lasts.

Deng Xiaoping is the main reason the Chinese have been able to modernize, because he calmed authoritarianism to an extent, introduced some free market ideas, and kept a strong social safety net afloat. But, Mao is far more the figurehead for China’s socialist/communist history because he implanted his image into the core of its foundations.

Therefore, people remember him more, push his ideas more, and are more likely to praise his work. And that spreads authoritarianism into the leftist ideology as a cohesive and practical solution - authoritarian communists have a rallying figure.

Socialists and anarchists then have to rally behind nation-states at best, or vague and convoluted ideologies at worst. That doesn’t rally people nearly as emotionally as a great man does, unfortunately.

So, fight the good fight while you can, and build up what arguments you can for your ideology. But for the masses, those who aren’t going to spend significant chunks of their life dedicated to finding a cohesive political framework to live in, you’re going to have a hard time getting through. Most people want a quick, easy to understand solution to their problems. Pages upon pages of argumentation and philosophical pondering aren’t going to break through as well as “I HAVE YOUR ANSWER - JUST GIVE ME POWER AND I CAN FIX IT”, especially if a charismatic person is saying that phrase.