Socialism impossible to implement on a large scale.

"The worker is entitled to the goods and services he or she produces. " Here we run into our first problem. Due to division of labour it is almost impossible to attribute any share of the output to a specific worker and thus this seems more like an empty statement. A better way of putting this would be that the worker is entitled to the full value of their contribution to the production process. Now if we take into account time preference then understand that there will be a discount on the value of the Labour that is proportional to the amount of time that passes between when the labour is expended and when the product is produced and sold. This already means that, Regardless of the system, The total sum of money expended on the factors of production (or FOP), Including Labour, Will in the long run be less than the total revenue from sales. The owner of the Means of Production is entitled to the difference between the discounted future values of the FOP and the present value of the products. "Capitalism is really two seperate markets: one for goods and services; another for labor (the job market). " This is a false dichotomy. Do the Labourers not provide a service to the Entrepreneur which they are then paid for? I would argue yes they do, So then they should also be lumped in with the market for goods and services. I believe the distinction you are trying to make is between the consumer market (The market for finished goods) and the Factor market (the market for higher order goods including natural resources, Capital, Labour and Enterprise). "The goal is to arrange for the largest gap in value possible between those markets, Because that difference is the capitalist's share. " Yes, But the presence of competition tends to narrow that gap. Also, Who is to say that the incentive to maximise profit will disappear if the workers owned the companies? Are workers somehow less greedy than Capitalists? Considering the fact that Workers won't have equal say in the distribution of these profits, Is it not still possible that the higher ups could funnel some of the profits into their own pockets unfairly? "There is still private property. It's still a competitive market economy. " Again, A capitulation that a Capitalist system is the best functioning system. Now, Considering the selfish nature of humanity, Who is to say that this Syndicalist system won't revert to old fashioned Capitalism? If you have private property and you have competitive markets, How exactly would your system differ from Capitalism? And again, What role does the entrepreneur play in such a system? The incentive to start businesses diminishes when the person who starts the company loses ownership as soon as he hires employees. Fewer businesses started means less competition in the long run, Leading to Oligopolistic or even monopolistic markets which, Doesn't seem too different to the current system does it? "But that's my point. I would counter that the capitalist system is tantilizingly close to a socialist one" Your definition of socialism is extremely broad if you're willing to keep the current system as it is and just shuffle around property rights. You're not advocating socialism, You are advocating Capitalism. You are just saying that some aspects of the Capitalist system should be pushed to their extremes (Public trading of equity). If anything, That proves my point that Socialism as defined above, As central or common ownership and distribution of the means of production, Is untenable and unsustainable and that if any form of socialism is at least possible it is the form most similar to Capitalism (at which point it would be a stretch to even call it Socialism).