You say authoritarian socialism is impossible, but then what would you call the USSR or similar states?
tbh you’re misunderstanding me. my point is that socialism can’t be anything but libertarian. even the most violent revolutionary form of socialism can be justified by and situated within libertarianism, even the most “authoritarian”-seeming socialist practice is a response to power dynamics that make it an essentially libertarian project. that obviously isn’t to say there aren’t non-socialist responses as well that might be considered authoritarian, but that genuine socialism in my mind can’t be considered authoritarian in any meaningful sense without a good amount of decontextualization and ahistorical nonsense.
i’ve talked about this a bit before but you can actually justify a revolutionary socialism with the non-aggression principle if you put it in these terms and undermine the arguments of “libertarian” capitalists, which is the reverse impossibility, as capitalism is inherently authoritarian and cannot be anything but authoritarian.