| I think some of the confusion is from how the word is used now. People refer to systems which apply socialist thinking as socialism, even if the governance is not a state government. For example, let's say a theoretical union takes guidance from the political philosophy of socialism, and requires union members to contribute the highest percentage of their salary as union dues, that they can legally get away with. Let's say workers are paying 90% of their salaries in union dues. The union can then use those dues to support the union members in various ways. This isn't a state government, but it behaves like a socialist system and people would probably call it an example of socialism. The wikipedia page on [religious socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_socialism) even has some examples of this in religious communities. You also have socialist anarchy, which supports stateless socialism |
Realistically that seems to be more or less completely unsustainable without some use of force. e.g. if individuals who contribute more than they pay in are allowed to opt-out the system quickly collapses. That's how universal healthcare, state pension/social systems work etc. so it's not necessarily a bad thing. However in general socialist "corporations" are generally incapable of competing in a "free" market so they can only exist when they are supported by the state or private/capitalist enterprises are banned or strongly restricted in one way or another.