In Russia 1917 prior to the genuine socialist revolution that overthrew the tyranny of the Tsar, the Mensuviks (reformists) argued precisely your line, namely that "democratically chosen socialist governments could not be taken seriously". The entire ethos of Marxism is centred on the notion that academic theory be put into practice. Theory should not be seen as separated off from practice as you imply, rather it ought to be fused with it. That's why we Marxists, as opposed to the Utopian tradition, which you appear to be a part of, believe in putting our theory into practice. So rather than restricting our ideas to the lecture theatre, we actually do something in practice: "The philosophers have only interpretted the world in different ways, the point however is to change it". We 'walk the walk, not just talk the talk' so to speak.

The world can only be changed for the better, if we use our superior arguments of rational pursuasion and by exposing the illusions of capitalism. We cannot hope to use the methods of our capitalist enemies and then take the moral high ground afterwards. The authoritarian and utopian approach that you speak of plays into the hands of the apologists for capitalism. Furthermore, the authoritarian/utopian approach is in no way representative of a democratic socialism (by definition the highest form of democracy known to man). This is because it is the antithesis of the idea that "the self-emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class".

You therefore wrongly assume that the existing minority ruling elite who act on the behalf of capital, can bring about socialism on behalf of the working class majority. This is the same trap that all the brutal tyrannical regimes of the past (Stalin, Mao etc) who professed their false socialist credentials, fell into.