There's nothing wrong with wages stagnating or falling as long as prices fall quicker. It's called getting richer.

Im quoting here the whole two socialism you mention, just not quoting everything to save space.

So basically what you are saying is that there are actually two socialism, the ones implemented throughout 20th century are state socialism and the other is anarch-socialism or whatever the name.

The description of anarch-socialism (for the lack of a better word) remembers me a lot the concepts explained by Dominic Frisby in his book "Life after the state" which I agree on a lot of things, but consider a lot of them very utopic. But its a really good bock, although he defines himself as an anarchist-capitalist.

So when socialists mention that "real socialism never existed" they are referring to this anarch-socialism? Im really curious to know because, based on what I see on tv and newspapers and political speeches, what all socialists in latin america defend is state socialism. 

Also if socialists actually really want is anarch-socialism (again for the the lack of a better word) why them all loves cuba and ussr so much which is the opposite of anarch socialism? Why would they praise it and try to transform other countries in it?

Btw the "poem" was really really good in explaining the differences, much better than all the philosophical speech that usually plagues discussions like this. But its totally utopic for me anyway.

They're not, so what now? What I find interesting about liberal ideology is they talk all about working hard but never want to fairly compensate workers for their work, why is this?

Which part of it are you talking about? Their conversation touches on several things and it's lengthy.

When he is talking about inequality by age bracket.

Generally, yes, but even within these two categories there is variation. Tucker was generalizing a bit. 

I'll have to read Dominic Frisby's stuff then. I am a former anarcho-capitalist so I've read Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, etc, and can appreciate much of their stuff even now even if they are wrong about  property (although Rothbard was more wrong than Friedman.)

Some socialists are referring to anarchism when they are talking about "real socialism", but what is generally meant is that in these totalitarian socialist countries power and control of the means of production wasn't given to the workers directly, instead it was centralized into the state which often emulated capitalism in order to sustain the economy. This is the basis for their claim that these countries were "state capitalist." I personally think that the totalitarian states which came to exist are an inevitable end-product of state socialism, and it's a fool's dream to think that the state can achieve socialism (worker's control of the means of production.) 

Some of the people who like Cuba and the USSR are in denial. Others are just LARPing. State-socialists actually exist and advocate for state socialism, ther's no denying that, but socialism doesn't necessarily have to be state socialism. Of course people who sympathize with Cuba and the USSR are in decline.  They're called "tankies". 

Utopian means something very specific, a person who wishes to achieve a perfect society. What you probably meant is "idealistic" although utopian has shifted in the modern sense to be a synonym of idealistic. There is much wrong with utopianism, but not much wrong with idealism. Ideas are necessary pre-requisites for change and betterment. Benjamin Tucker wasn't a utopian, he didn't think anarchism would achieve a perfect society (merely the least imperfect), but could be called an idealist because he believed anarchism would be a vastly better way to do things than what existed in his (and our) time. 

If you don't mind me asking, what caused you to switch from being an anarcho-capitalist to your current ideology?

His explanation makes perfect sense on that. Older people are gonna have more because they had more time invested in earning their money compared to a just a kid just out of college with alot of debt. 

It was a process. I took a class on political philosophy that slowly broke down my prejudices of other ideologies: feminism, socialism, progressive liberalism, etc and also allowed me to better critique my own ideas. Around the same time the "anarcho-capitalist" movement was being influenced (and influenced) the alt-right significantly, mostly through the ideas of Hans-Herman Hoppe. You'd see a lot of racist and nationalist bullshit thrown around. More and more you'd also find anarcho-capitalists whom rejected enlightenment ideals, not because they thought they were insufficient, but because they thought the enlightenment put us in the wrong direction and feudalism/absolutism would be preferable in so much as the feudal lords/kings didn't interfere with the peasants lives.This was obviously bullcrap. Overall there was a shift rightward in the ancap community, and while I didn't reject the ancap label, I thought many people whom labeled themselves ancaps were acting and believing things contrary to libertarian principles.  

I was also very interested in what the economies of near anarchic societies were like at the time, reading about colonial Pennsylvania, medieval Iceland, the American frontier, etc, and they definitely weren't capitalist. At the same time I read a lot of stuff by Lysander Spooner, Roderick Long and other anti-capitalist lockeans as well as mutualists like Kevin Carson. Through Long's and Carson's work I read the work of other's at the think-tank C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society.) Particularly I read Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. 

There was a lot of stuff about the 19th century individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker, Voltairine de Cleyre, Josiah Warren, William Greene Batchelder, and many others who were radical individualist and radical anti-capitalists that stuck with me. Much more than anything an anarcho-capitalist wrote. Mostly because the individualist anarchist's theory and praxis was grounded in the world that we have today and wasn't so axiomatic based on debatable premises. 

I then read some stuff from Ricardian Socialists like Thomas Hodgskin and John Gray who saw (classical) liberalism and socialism as two-sides of the same coin, unlike Marxists. 

I finally ended my transition by rejecting objective morality and absolute property through reading Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Max Stirner. Both of these are probably my biggest influences currently, besides Benjamin Tucker. 

Additionally I read stuff from Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin to realize that anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists want most of the same things as individualists, and in many ways communism or collectivism can complement individualism in so much as neither is taken to an extreme. For example, when somebody is young an energetic asserting one's individuality is important. When somebody is old and content they might want the benefits of community. As long as everyone's free to choose. 

This was all within the last two years. 

That's what happens when you come off the gold standard and put 'coin clippers' in charge. Sir Isaac Newton used to torture counterfeiters to death when he was Master of the Mint. If the current laws were to change, I wouldn't oppose the same thing happening to the boys and girls at the Bank of England and their enablers in Parliament.

How are internet speed ($/kb) and computer speed prices today compared to the 80s? How much richer would 'the workers' be if all of their costs dropped by a factor of a thousand/million/billion?