I Think most of us here refrain from joining a cult of any specific ideologies which is a good way to be. I feel anarchism best describes my social position (an absence of hard and fast rules but a cohesive society on the basis of general compassionate motivations) not socialism.
The basis of socialist thinking ( the fundamentals) however are more or less the same thing. You contribute what you can (it's immoral not to) and you get what you need (not more or less). When you said to that 'no' your follow up seemed to say half yes, but then no on the compensation aspect, like you expect more for your skills than others get for theirs. Is this correct? Is this your hang up? If so, that's where we differ..
I have skills, a logical mind and the ability to solve practical and intellectual puzzles. As such, I'm quite capable. I don't get adequate compensation for it and never have (that is, I've always struggled to find enough to pay bills and eat). If I had enough or if I didn't (as is the case), it doesn't stop me designing, building, creating. It's not the compensation that determines my nature, and wouldn't change it for better or for worse if I was paid more. If it did, it would prove me as a charlatan, I think.
One positive aspect of socialism is that with everyone receiving equal access to opportunities (like access say to musical instruments, wood and metal workshops, paint/canvas, laboratories and libraries, unlike the reality where poor people education has only a sliver of this cornucopia of talent discovery), the real skills and latent talent of every individual would be more likely to be shaken to the surface and monopolised on for both personal satisfaction and that of the community. For every person with a measure of wealth where access to something as simple as a piano yields a discovery of talent vs someone in poverty who never finds that same talent because the opportunity isn't presented, we all lose as a result. Part f the reason I think hip hop replaced Jazz in many black communities- the cost of instrument purchase became more prohibitive and hip hop allowed expression without that economic cost. Which is great in one way, but how many potentially great masters of the trumpet, for example, were never found because of that economic deficit? Or you disagree entirely and I've just opened another big old can of worms.. Either way, I like the idea of not missing something beautiful just because the person who could have showed it to me was too poor to ever find it themselves.
Fundamental social principles aren't suggesting utopia, just equal opportunities weight adjusted for economics. Obviously beautiful things don't come from bland beginnings.
Tha sort of thing is the stuff I don't think you and I would disagree on, but if I'm right then it says you overreacted about the evil nature of socialism/Marxism, because what you were talking about more accurately was how people coopt good ideas for stupid conclusions, which of course happens with everything, from politics to philosophy to religion and everything in between. Certainly, keep your critical faculties, but don't throw out baby and bath water.