Personally I don't believe the term authoritarianism is a useful description of anything. It's too vague. I've seen one definition that's like "a system that rejects the involvement of certain groups or interests from the political process." Well that would be all socialist nations by default, since socialist countries by definition have denied political representation for the capitalist class in some way.

A better question is: How is a socialist country supposed to defend itself? It may not be possible for a country to achieve what Marx called upper-phase communism. It may not be possible for money, states, and all property to be abolished. That's a question for the future. But when a country tries to curtail the power of capitalists, even attempts to create what's known as true communism, they find themselves on the receiving end of an entire world against them. Sanctions, invasions, sabotage, spying. The shape that a socialist country will take is the result of its conditions. We're living in a world dominated by capital and socialist countries represent a resistance against capital. If socialist movements are threatened, they either defend themselves or collapse.

You're right that countries are dancing to the imperialists, because the imperialists hold the most power right now. That's why an anti-imperialist movement is important, why a multi-polar world is important. Once the threat of imperialism subsides or is defeated, then I'm going to guess socialist countries will begin to express their policies differently.

I don't think I'm comfortable with a central power having the authority to decide that certain groups don't have rights, that power is too often abused widely.

Is there any society that isn't this? A central authority deciding how to distribute rights is a governing body.

Socialism is a movement about denying the right of property to capitalists. That's the entire purpose of the movement, to elevate working class people to the point of dominating society and to restrain or abolish the capitalist class. Landlords and capitalists shouldn't be able to exercise the same rights they have in a liberal capitalist nation. Fascists, racists, transphobes, imperialists, etc shouldn't have any civil liberties and should be subject to arrest, reeducation, or worse.

Comunism can only emerge from authoritarianism, by definition, because every single class society is authoritarian, and thus every state is. And as Engels noticed, revolution is the most authoritarian thing that is.

Imperialism is not the same as authoritarianism. To know what we mean by "imperialism" read Lenin's "Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism".

And you might noticed how authoritarianism in my first sentence is used incredibly wide, it's not a mistake, it's one of those terms that have no useful meaning, it wasn't even useful to start with, and especially not when it went through the liberal media and social media mill which had tendency to either purposefully or acidentally (or both) twist definitions to the point they are unrecognizable. Therefore to broadly talk about "authoritarianism" is meaningless, that word is unhelpful as definition and can be used at most as the cliche to deflect discussion (and note it's been used in this thread in this characer extensively by liberals who sure as hell aren't opposing it because they support authoritarian societies as well).

OP didn't need to compare every socialist movement to fascists but they did, we didn't need to reply to most of them, but we did. But we're supposed to tailor our arguments to you, someone admits to not actually caring about any of it? No thank you