Here s my opinion.
1. The minimal definition of socialism is socialized production. It does NOT
explicitly call for totalism.
2. However, there are many almost inevitable consequences of "socialized
production" that almost inevitably lead to totalism, and without a
totalitarian
government, socialized production can not sustain itself.
3. A totalitarian government can be democratically elected. "Totalitarian
democracy" so to speak.
4. However, a "totalitarian democracy" is likely not a stable system, and
likely degenerates into an autocracy.
5. Summarize the above, socialism almost certainly leads to totalism, which
inevitably degenerates into autocracy. Unless, one is willing to sacrifice
the pureness of socialism, i.e. limit the socialization to part of the
economy and let the rest run in a free capitalist manner.
6. The form of soviet type totalitarian socialist governments are a product
of Leninism. A violent revolution can only be led and maintained by a
totalitarian organization.
more on #2 above.
socialized production almost certainly requires a central planner.
Production cannot be completely socialized when individuals produce goods
they see fit on their own as opposed to that seen fit by the "society". The
soviet type governments had 5-year plans.
socialized production almost certainly leads to socialized consumption.
Otherwise demand for goods not produced or in greater/smaller quantity than
planned would interrupt socialized production. Some goods would go wasted,
some would see their price sky rocket due to under production.
The socialized consumption must be also under the authority of the central
planner. Old timers like me still remembers "粮票“,”肉票“,”缝纫机票“.
..
once we socialized the consumption, socialized compensation is a logic
result. where the compensation of each individual is predetermined, and
highly homogenized. Since consumption is socialized and planned, no one
goods is more valuable than any others. Producing more than planned is as
bad as producing less. One likely would not be able to produced more anyway
as the resource allocated for his production must also have been planned.
Producing something not planned at all is also bad, at least has 0 value
since no body is planned to consume it. Therefore innovation is bad. Hence "
社会主义大锅饭“。
now,the natural fluctuation in population and demographics could also
disrupt socialized production. therefore the population production needs to
be socialized. When there are too many consumers, one would cut down human
reproduction, when there is a lack of labor force, one must boost human
reproduction. therefore “光荣母亲”,“独生子女”,“开放二胎”。
The central planner could very well be an individual or a group
democratically elected. However, once elected, he/it must be given full
control of production, consumption, by corollary the whole economic life of
every individual.