Nobody actually believes anything that calls itself socialist/communist is justified axiomatically. In reality, socialists supportive of what's called "Actually Existing Socialism" support these states for their progressive advancements and socialist economies, being defined by their actual characteristics. These actual characteristics include having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy (ie, that which is dominant, rising, and in control of the economy, typically by commanding the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working classes in control of the state.

Examples of AES include the PRC, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and depending on who you ask, Vietnam. Formerly existing socialism includes the USSR. No communist considers the Russian Federation to be AES. You're confusing (or deliberately misleading) critical support for bourgeois states against imperialism, such as Iran, Palestine, etc, with AES.

Notably, your theory that simply calling oneself socialist/communist is enough to be considered AES falls apart immediately once considering the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot's Cambodia considered itself communist, yet they were stopped by the Vietnamese communists, and no Marxists really consider them to have been genuinely communists. The National Socialist Party of Germany is another example, no communist supports the Nazis despite their claims of being socialists. It isn't the name that matters, but the structure. This isn't even getting into disagreements between Marxist-Leninists and Maoists on groups like the Shining Path, the Naxalites, CPI (M) vs. CPI (ML), etc.

In reality, you just maintain a stance on AES that runs counter to Marxist consensus, and rather than argue against the actual reasons for that consensus, you try to sidestep that entire exercise by claiming it has to do with naming. I already explained how this is full of holes in the prior paragraph, but further emphasis is necessary: you're describing someone that doesn't exist.