It's my pet peeve to call them Trots because of their condemnation of Stalinist Russia as "state capitalism" on virtually the same points as Trotsky and Trotskyism does, rather than simply calling it "capitalism" ("state capitalism" suggests that capital is subordinate to the state or that value production is not driver, while in any case it was and always had been).
Yeah it's probably more correct to call them impossibilists. Also, though De Leon was at the origin of the term impossibilism, I'd say the position (in all but name) was already a thing for self-fancied Marxists long before by parties like the POF and was very influential on orthodox Marxists like Luxemburg and councilists like Gorter.
Except man is not one-dimensional: the needs he finds in his peers are determined by his environment, experience and the cumulative influence of historical processes. If man's first instinct was to kill another man, we would have to wonder how there are still men. We would also have to wonder why man creates structures to prevent the killing of man if man is a ruthless utilitarian, and why man only created such structures millenia into its history as a species, and also wonder why only when certain conditions were met it was even conceivable or possible to do as such. Then we would have to challenge recorded history showing us that we have existed peacefully and without isolated production for millenia as well and ask ourselves: is man first an instinctive animal, or is man an architectural and inventive animal like (almost) no other (to such extents)?
And I have to wonder again: if you posit such vulgar utilitarianism, why do you instinctively view murder as its maxim? Wouldn't enslavement (hint: slave society), landed rule (hint: feudalism) or generalization of property (hint: capitalism) not be much more effective, as it enables the extraction of their exploits to your benefit? Fuck, before we get all historical materialist, why can't you just keep them around for a chat?
Again you presuppose that there is a single, overriding essence of the human species but then fail to invoke the necessary explanation for why this doesn't pervade in every other occurence of daily life today or how it is possible that we collectively limit ourselves to it outside of idealistically presupposing this as a dual side of our "nature" without explaining why.
I have disagreements with Zizek but look at this: youtube.com/watch?v=XcG2z20w2WE.
I'm gonna crawl through my EPUB of Socialist Commonwealth and directly cite you the parts in which Mises asserts that socialism means the lack of prices (and conversely his point was that socialism, or at least his crude understanding of it, would inevitably mean that price would reappear again and assert itself as regulator anyways).
Like I said, Mises' understanding of socialism was better than 95% of "socialists" but it was still shit.
That's literally the enduring maxim of capital's abolition bub. Excluded access can only be justified on a directly utility-based principle with the abolition of capital: i.e. not letting children and fools into the power plant because they could cause a catastrophy (communism) versus not letting in electricians because they're not hired at the firm.