> many people feel that way under socialism

Assuming this is true then we have two economic systems in which people feel limited in their opportunities - albeit in different situations and for different reasons: the capitalist one by prioritising roles that have value to those with capital (corporations etc.), and the Socialist one by prioritising value to the community. I suppose it is a question then of where we individually find greater personal value and what fits in with our values.

> Would you consider "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" a form of coercion?

I would consider it a form of coercion, because artificially restricting access to food when it is plentiful is intentional cruelty. "Serve me or starve" is an abusive relationship. Where there is safety net - at least to the basics needed for life - people can make more rational choices, and hold out for better choices.

Note: This aphorism attributed to St. Paul seems to be diametrically opposed to the rest of the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus as well as to basic human decency, and is one (of the dozens of) reasons I think Christians should reject Paul as an authentic apostle (as Jefferson, Shaw, Tolstoy, Ghandi, Kierkegaard & Sagan did).

> any form of freelancing is typically forbidden

I suppose this is question of what you mean by freelancing. There are always highly skills craftsman and experts in very specific fields whose work isn't limited to one workplace etc. But who is forbidding it? Are you mistaking Socialism for the authoritarian Soviet system?

> Apparently I created negative value and still got paid for it, therefore I robbed someone.

Value is very subjective in Capitalism. Luxuries may be cheaper than essentials (television vs house), some eccentric professions are valued far more highly than those necessary for human survival.

But a worker is almost always in a far more precarious position than an owner.

> there are no startups in socialism

Really? I see Socialism as the possibility for all sorts of start ups that would provide human benefit that no share holder looking for a profit would ever invest in, but would enrich humanity greatly.

> Maybe it's time for lefties to stop viewing every business interaction as "robbing", every salary as "slavery", every cheesy comment as "rape" and every disagreement as "genocide"?

If one has the basic assumption that value is created by the worker and that capitalism is taking that value unethically then robbing seems an appropriate word for it, likewise a system in which a worker's choices of employment and the wages from it are limited artificially to support this system then people may feel like serfs (although it could be argued that serfs had more capital and a higher return on their labour - at least in England after the Black Death when they were in a better bargaining position).

Who is saying cheesy comments are rape though? Who sees disagreements as genocide? Did those disagreements lead to actual deaths?

> comparing US prisons to Gulag is laughable.

As someone with family in the US prison I have become very familiar with its human rights abuses, which would not be tolerated in any other European country.

> Isn't it a funny coincidence, that socialism and dictatorship usually go hand in hand

I guess I wasn't clear. I was talking about capitalist dictatorships that people wish to escape from. See Pinochet's Chile, Putin's Russia, Orbán's Hungary, Erdoğan's Turkey for examples.

> What an obscure way to say "capitalistic".

As the meme goes -
Socialism never works!
But Norway is Socialist and they are doing great.
They're not Socialist - they are Capitalist!
The lets adopt their policies.
No, that's Socialism!

These countries are Socialist when a Capitalist wants to criticise them and Capitalist when a Capitalist wants to praise or excuse them.

It is true that they are not wholly Socialist. They are "Social Democratic" (what Bernie Sanders calls "Democratic Socialism") But Socialist parties seeking to implement Socialist-inspired principles were the ones who usually introduced universal* healthcare, pensions, housing, vacations etc. This is because the concept of decommodification is integral to production for use and need (rather than profit). It is an underlying assumption about the worth of people that motivates the worker led, owned and shared workplace.

*free at the point of delivery for lower taxation by shared liability (public insurance)

> You do realize that none of them are even considering abolishing private ownership?

The abolishment of private property is Communist - not Socialist. Now, some Socialists are in favour of it, and most Communists (at least those who fit Marx's stateless, classless, moneyless definition) are Socialists too. Some of these European governments have a great deal of social housing, public land, public utilities etc. that was - at least in part - seen as progress toward minimising the negative effects of (rent seeking) private property and working toward it's elimination, but as I said that isn't strictly Socialism in itself.