you bring very good points, I do agree marx himself was obviously influenced by the world he lived in and couldn't think of one outside of this scope, his view on history for example (historical materialism) one thing that could for example based on european history he assumes a liberal capitalistic state will emerge in all nation following feudalism and which will be succeeded by his socialist utopia, he couldn't think of a world in liberal capitalistic state is not an end stage.
I'm not one of those socialist who call every failed socialist experiment "not real socialism" and don't subscribe to the ideology. I disagreed with you just on the point that socialism i sa rigid ideology that cannot adapt to different conditions. I would say Socialism is in fact just an umbrella term for many loosely related anti capitalist ideas and very flexible, the opposite of a rigid ideology with clear guidelines. The socialist never truly defines how his utiopia should look like, how to reach it and never brings forth a clear alternative but focuses solely on critique of the capitalist system.
This meant that in the end it was leaders like Mao, Ho chi Minh etc who defined socialism in their respective countries ( as a state ideology that legitimized their party and adapted to their countries culture and values ) and were able to establish authoritarian, but stable states. I think this may have happened in Africa too if these african socialist leaders were not as reliant on soviet aid or choose the socialist aesthetic to get soviet aid in the first place like barre.
I agree theory does not align with practice, but saying that the expectation on that theoretical, ideological proposition of such paradigm apparatus can never become entirely reconciled because it's suppositionally untenable and based on a faulty universalist claim of human affairs, to begin with. It's wrong in many places and doesn't revert to the "socialism wrong everywhere" low-hanging fruit.
One can make loosely related terms that struggle to align themselves with reality and call them flexible -- the foundational stress test comes from the application. Either way, what one chooses to do, if one is to make a comprehensive system, is to convert that to a socialist practical measure that more than often is centrally defined and centrally governed, a unipolarity of sorts morphs into a formalist shape. Constricted is it by certain anti-capitalistic principles that give them a rooted character no matter how malleable one claim it is. Parameters for its legitimacy for its existence have to stand as it purports to present a systemic solution.
Moreover, the thoughts behind it are often non-original if you put it under a scope. For example, egalitarian thinking existed way before. It is the right choice to debunk the thought that socialism holds a monopoly and definitional power of collective human will and various outcome needs, values, and organizational capacity. Held hostage, have humanity been to these mediocre Western systems. There is an inherent fallacy that people push. Namely, a good critique of Capitalism equates to the answer to the solution. It's frankly just reactionary, and I don't think there is real maturity from such dynamism. What you want are new better-defined questions outside the "anti-capitalism" fight.
I also have other issues with these socialist principles if put under the simulation. I think a discussion for another day, my friend.
I have no time or interest in ideologies. I believe they are dead and placeholders for lack of genuine development. Solutions should forever be moving, changing, and created by monitoring the needs, growth, objectives, etc. You will end up with a mixed solution that never needs to have these grand claims of archetypical battles.
Siad Barre was with the shit kept it 
with that ugly Ethiopian midget 
