If you say so, but where is the "doctrinaire mishmash"? Or is simple comparison now "mishmash"?
If early Christian communities, where the sharing of, and pareclling-out, of common resources, is not socialism, then what is? It should not matter that socialism was not, at the time, a (half-)thought-out political doctrine, nor that the underlying motivation was religious rather than political or economic.
If the notion was presented to you free of the religious angle, would you recognize it as socialism in action?
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
You sound like Hillary Clinton. The voluntary sharing of early Christians is a far cry from state enforced socialism imposed at the point of bayonets, secret police, and guns. That is why a quote from Mao seemed so discordant I didn't know what to say, except mishmash. Next you will be calling families socialist, except you may know that they regard families as reactionary.