*and I'm using 'individual' in the place of worker because there should be no actual distinction.

Because we're talking revolution within a capitalist framework, and this transitional period could last for many generations, it's not simply a matter of saying these two things can be reconciled. Unlike communism that usurped feudalism we're talking an absolutely different beast.

I feel this is a hard dividing line in the socialist school of thought.
On one hand reducing suffering through charity would threaten to take agency away from those who couldn't produce for them selves. On the other empowered individuals are often compelled to act even unknowingly at the expense of others.

Group 1 can fall in to the trap of believing communism would deliver a luxury for all, despite austerity being core to communist principles. Group 2 can be utterly opposed to a democratic framework to decide outcomes, because of insularity and fear.

This transitional paradox is one of the main reasons socialism falters in the field of rhetoric where simple, straightforward and easily digestible propaganda works best. Externally I think people do perceive these contradictions and don't have the academic base to really understand it, so put it down to a fault in the system.

Sadly it seems democratic socialism has become the most publicly acceptable branding of socialism because it sticks firm to a kind of socialisty principle while making many many concessions. It depends on a great deal of moralising and attempting to grain the highground without really putting in the effort to expose the moral contradictions of capitalism.

Which is a huge flaw in it's self. As capitalists can always use their unlimited rescources to position them selves essentially wherever they want in the public consciousness. Despite this there is argument to be made that this sanatised version of socialism is what has allowed it's popularity to sustain. Equally though a socialism of vanity is just no socialism at all as it just doesn't have the means to protect it's self.

So some question:

In your mind if a communist revolution happens is it for the ends of stopping all poverty? Or would it be because you all to be empowered as individuals to express our selves to the best of our capabilities?

Do you see demsoc as a positive for socialism, a pipeline to the left...or the opposite?

How would you reconcile these conflicts and create a better brand for socialism/communism?