This has never been the case in any society, throughout any point in human history, ever.

Neither of these claims are true. Socialism does not require equality of outcome, it only requires that all workers/citizens have democratic ownership over their own means of production (that is quite literally the defining characteristic of socialism). It is perfectly fine for a neurosurgeon to make more money than a barista under socialism; the only difference is that, under socialism, every worker holds democratic ownership over the profits of their own labor, unlike capitalism, where the private owner(s) hold sole ownership over the profits of all the workers' labor. There is no system that enforces equality of outcomes.

"They despise private property rights,"

"Private property" has a different context under socialism than under capitalism. Under socialism, "private property" refers to the privatized ownership over the means of production of others (things like businesses, factories, land, machinery, and other things that we use to produce profits). On the contrary, things that YOU own for your own personal use (like your car, your home, your food, your TV, etc.) are called "personal property" and are rightfully yours. Under socialism, you are perfectly free to own your own things for you, but you CANNOT own the things for other people. For example, you can own your own home, but you cannot own someone else's home, aka landlording.

"hate success,"

Socialists hate capitalist success, which is simply stealing the profits of other people's labor (that is fundamentally how capitalists make money, via private ownership over the product of other people's work). This is not success, this is just legalized theft.

"and see everything as an eternal class struggle between rich and poor, “bourgeois,” and “proletarian.”"

Class struggle is not between "the rich" and "the poor", it is between those who hold private ownership over the means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who do not. Simply being rich is not the issue, it is HOW you acquire money. Someone who gets rich through their own labor is good, but someone who makes their money by taking the profits of other people is bad, regardless of whether they're rich or not.

"They ... see all poverty and any inequality in wealth as a direct result of exploitation at the hands of the rich, having nothing to do with poor choices or circumstances."

Sure, if I took all the money out of my bank account and tossed it in a river, then that would certainly be the result of my own poor decision, right? Literally no one is arguing that financial loss can't come at your own hands, so what's up with all these badly postulated strawmen arguments..?

However, capitalism IS a structurally exploitative system, because capitalists both take the profits of other people's labor AND deny access to goods/service for profit, thus exacerbating poverty on a systemic level, but individual acts of financial loss are obviously still possible.

"The only way to liberate the working class from the rule of the rich, they allege, is to punish those whom they deem too successful by stealing the fruits of their labor"

Not sure what you even mean by "punish those they deem too successful", but capitalists are already stealing the fruits of their workers' labor...that's quite literally what abolishing capitalism is meant to stop/resolve. Socialism seeks to end the system that allows private owners to steal the products/profits of other people's labor by instead creating a system in which the workers themselves hold ownership over the products/profits of their own labor, aka socialism. Profits belong to the workers who produce it, not to the capitalists that take it from them.

"By taxing the rich, who hire all the workers and produce and supply all the goods in an economy, ..."

"Hiring workers" doesn't produce any kind of value, and it's merely a basic managerial duty at best. A hiring manager at Walmart hires workers, yet they are neither "rich" nor the owner, because management is a mutually exclusive job from being a capitalist; all managers are workers, but not all owners are managers.

More importantly, owners do NOT supply, or even produce, the goods in an economy...that's what the workers do. Workers provide 100% of the production in any economic system, but under socialism the workers own their own production, unlike capitalism where the owners take it all.

But also, socialism has nothing to do with taxation, so if you're under the impression that socialism is "when the government taxes rich people", then you clearly don't know what it is to begin with.

"...they government sends a clear message that hard work is a sin, hiring employees is evil, and producing goods and services is a crime."

Work is not "a sin" (no such thing anyway). Work is done by workers, to provide and maintain for the needs of society, which is good, and that's the opposite of what capitalists do.

Secondly, hiring employees is only "evil" if those employees have no ownership over their own means of production. There should not be any distinction between "employers" and "employees" because ALL workers should be guaranteed democratic ownership over the product/profits of their own labor.

Thirdly, producing goods and services is not a crime, obviously, but private individuals stealing the profits of other people's labor should be. These are probably your worst strawman arguments yet, and it just suggests that you don't even know what socialism is.

"And by giving handouts to lazy slobs who do nothing, the government is rewarding laziness with a cash bailout while reprimanding productivity and growth through legalized theft."

You are literally describing capitalism here. A system where private owners can do absolutely no work at all and yet legally steal a cut of the profits from those that DO work is called capitalism. Under socialism, every worker would own the profits of their own labor, without some boss taking their money and making all of their decisions like a private dictator.

"To cloak their wicked ideology, many Marxists have resorted to calling themselves “democratic socialists,”..."

Actually, Democratic Socialism is the term for a broad range of socialist ideology, which includes some, but not necessarily all, of Marxist ideology. You can be a Democratic Socialist AND a Marxist Socialist, or you can be one but not the other, or you could believe in a different form of socialist ideology altogether...because there are many forms of socialism and not all of them overlap. Capitalism is the same way too; there are many different forms of capitalism that you can subscribe to or disagree with, like Anarcho-Capitalism, Libertarian Capitalism, State Capitalism, Social Democracy, Mixed-Capitalism, etc.

"In fact, they got elected for promising the exact same things modern “democratic socialists,” woo voters with. For instance, in the 1920 German National Socialist (better known as Nazi ) Party Platform, Hitler promised voters many of the same things modern-day leftists do..."

I assumed you would've understood exactly why authoritarian state leaders and politicians make progressive empty promises and lies, considering you claim to be anti-state, right? State officials talk about believing in and doing good things because they want people to believe them so that they can stay in power, even if they don't actually believe in any of it, or just want to do terrible things instead.

In fact, that's literally exactly what Hitler did. He called his party the "National Socialist German Worker's Party" because he wanted it to appeal to working-class voters, even though he was blatantly anti-socialist and racist. One of the first groups he targeted were actual socialists, communists, and labor unionists, which he would eventually label with a red triangle as "political enemies" because they threatened his oppressive state rule.

...

Overall, your arguments just seemed to be attacking strawmen that either have nothing to do with socialism or only show a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, unfortunately. You never actually addressed what socialism is, nor did you ever explain why the system itself is bad. Why do you think workers shouldn't have ownership over the product/profits of their own labor..?