a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

community = state.

means of production, distribution and exchange = state owned power, roads, etc

Yes, and that's exactly how I like it and how it should be in nature. Most social animals have a hierarchy that leads to amassing of resources towards the top. Trying to collectively meet human needs is socialist.

That does not work. Take Trinidad & Tobago for example. T&T is one of the wealthiest countries in the Caribbean as well as having one of the highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the Americas, and yet most of T&T citizens are poor, the roads are in bad condition, and hardly any police stations for miles etc. So where is that wealth going? Definitely not towards human needs.

That does not work. Take Trinidad & Tobago for example. T&T is one of the wealthiest countries in the Caribbean as well as having one of the highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the Americas, and yet most of T&T citizens are poor, the roads are in bad condition, and hardly any police stations for miles etc. So where is that wealth going? Definitely not towards human needs.

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

community = state.

means of production, distribution and exchange = state owned power, roads, etc

Here is where you go wrong, Contestgamer: you make the mistake of equating society with state institutions (e.g. police, courts, prisons). If this is, in fact, the case then how is the phenomenon of anarchist socialism even possible? How, for example, is what you see right now in Chiapas or Rojava even possible in your view of what socialism is? If it exists in the real world, it requires an explanation, after all.

Perhaps another source of confusion may be one's mental conflation of state and government. Anarchist socialists, such as yours truly for example, oppose the state but not government at a conceptual level. We are not, as a certain stigma has it, supporters of chaos. In point of fact, anarchist revolutions are usually a product of chaos unintentionally created by a repressive police state, often emerging in the context of a civil war being fought thereby, for instance. We are not agents of chaos. We're not actually advocating the kind of community you saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. :P Anarchism is entirely compatible with, for example, the local populace voluntarily gathering, crafting, and voting upon a general economic plan for production and distribution within said community, as well as the crafting of rules and community-based enforcement thereof. The enactment of legislation does not end with the abolition of the state, as far as I am concerned, and as far as nearly all anarchists are concerned. What ends is the separation of these processes from the population itself.

Personally, I regard myself specifically as a communalist. Communalists favor the reorganization of humanity into giant networks of autonomous communes. In connection to the question of government, this means that I advocate the introduction of direct or, if you will, participatory democracy; a type of political organization wherein people vote on public policies directly rather than through elected representatives and which is obviously only viable at the local level. I think it's hard to rationally argue that this kind of localism equates to the introduction of "bigger government" or that the introduction of participatory democracy and things like community policing and restorative justice in place of electoral or non-democracy and traditional policing, courts, and prisons is the same thing as implementing a police state. (Communalists are also very pragmatic and believe in the possibility of things like peaceful revolutions that can be achieved, at least in part, through electoral avenues, it may be worth adding, in contrast to some other socialist libertarians and anarchists.)

The introduction of participatory democracy might alternatively, in economic terms, be described as bringing the government fully under social management. If feudal governance might be defined as a system wherein the government is privately owned (e.g. by a particular family or religious institution, general, or political party), then democracy, to the extent that it exists, can be characterized as the creation of a public sector; as the socialization of government. Radical democracy, such as I advocate, then is the completion of this task. In other words, in my mind, to the extent that a "socialist" government fails the democracy test, it also fails the socialism test.

Yes, I believe that the local community should basically own everything and distribute human necessities according to need. I also believe that both the government and the economy should be managed in a radically democratic fashion. I don't see how that's repressive.

Hate speech is subjective. 

A lot of the Quran and Hadith verses are the embodiment of hate speech, why aren't they banned in the Britain? If hate speech isn't allowed, all London Islamic schools should be shut down. 

Socialism doesn't mean "more taxes & bigger government".

Hate speech is not subjective. UK has the PREVENT system to deal with radical extremism. Why should all London Islamic Schools be shut down? Are all religions a form of hate speech, or is it Islam in particular?

Hate speech is not subjective. UK has the PREVENT system to deal with radical extremism. Why should all London Islamic Schools be shut down? Are all religions a form of hate speech, or is it Islam in particular?