You are naively mistaken, and wrong on almost every supposition you made.

Worse, you aren't following the bare bones rational rules needed to discern truth from falsehood. There can be no rational discussion without following these rules.

This necessarily means that in a 4 state system, you would be wrong at least 75% of the time. This expands for each additional factor exponentially with the complexity to above 6 sigma in that system (with each additional factor, close to 100% false), very rapidly.

For money to be money it must have 3 elements that cannot be violated. Those elements are well known and documented (by the general consensus of experts). There is no point debating this.

Value is not an impossible concept, its subjective, but that by no means makes it impossible in the same way that quantum physics isn't impossible. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with the concept of superposition, what an observer is, and what the collapse of a wavefunction does with regards to quantum systems. There are equivalencies in economics that have gone unaddressed.

Neoclassical economics has a very ambiguous definition, unless you define what you mean more clearly (such that there can be only one generally understood meaning), we can't refute what you say or even discuss it, it must be discarded as a matter of course.

The classical definition I'm familiar with relies heavily on Keynes errors, but other definitions were contradictory in more than a few different ways (contradictions show rational premises and suppositions are false).

I'm not going to allow any discussion to get bogged down in baseless drivel, where you claim the exact opposite based on my response (in deceitful hegelian fashion which the ambiguity allows), just for the sake of argument. Please clarify what you mean.

Socialism in general fails given a wide enough time horizon, its fundamentally unstable. This was fully dissected in the 1930s-1950s by Mises from a structural view (in all its forms).

Even the market types of socialism fail because its based on a Ponzi, where the underlying life of the currency isn't taken into account in the dynamics, it falls back to violence/feudalism with about an equal chance at collapse when the social contract and by extension elements of money/property are no longer upheld.

It also neglects the fundamental requirements needed by individuals in an economy to function, but its failures are indirect (as are ponzi's in general). Adam Smith had a number of boundary conditions where the economic system stalls (and fails). Indirect though it is, they still cascade, and once wound up can't be diffused (because system deflation has been made impossible).

Mises documented the 4 intractable problems with Socialism, and properly observed that Socialism cannot exist without some free market to discover pricing. Without that free market, distortions occur as printing (subsidies) are used, eventually culminating in failure if they warp enough.

Virtual good manipulation (i.e. naked options), prevent a market from functioning properly.

Keynes makes many assumptions, one is that general liquidity is preferenced and all that is needed is to adjust the rates accordingly, but that is rationally false. In outlier conditions this can be false when there can be no credibility in the currency (its no longer considered a store of value, or its expected that any value will be negated), value in the form of purchasing power, as in what happened with Weimar Germany prior to WW2.

Your arguments are specious and neglect the common predictable failures in such systems, thus directly promoting a failed design in a safety-critical system, the outcome of which is first slavery, then destruction (as Malthus reversion takes hold, dependent interconnected systems with single points of failure are brittle; and central heirachy guarantees that at a structural level).