The Argument For Socialism
In Socialism, the laborer is the direct manager of their means of production, and receives the whole of their production. In Capitalism, the laborer is dominated by a Capitalist, who directs production and sets wages.
The argument against Capitalism and for Socialism...
(1) Each worker, receiving the whole of their production, would be able to better provide for themselves; and if this were not the case, then capitalists would not seek it out to the point of ordering firing squads on children.
(2) Each industry has been organized towards the interests of the wealthy. They produce their luxury items where millions are starving, they keep barren fields where armies of unemployed "will work for food." If the workers organized industries according to their interests, everything would be directed towards the benefit of all. Pay would be proportionate to work, as means of guaranteeing the material of life to the people, and factories would have safe and efficient machinery.
Land, being organized for the people, would allow each to labor. We would be able to benefit from our labors without paying a profit percentage of our production to some idle master. With industries organized according to the interests of people, jobs would pay more, products would be cheaper and safer, and there would be no unemployment. It is the employment relationship -- the domination of the worker by the capitalist -- that creates the barrier to greater, social harmony.
(3) There is no such thing as property outside of what man defines it as. The king owned the people and could order the death of anyone; but this ownership has been cast off. Hereditary property wasn't abolished. But a type of ownership was abolished. So too with the end of Feudalism, whether it was European or Asian. The lords, the vassals, the knights, the warlords -- all possessors of the people and the land lost their right to a type of property, but not all property.
Similarly, progress has been in this direction, from extending civil rights to minorities, to admitting that women possess themselves. If it was done by past generations, then we, too, must have this fundamental right: the right to abolish a type of property, where it produces incalculable suffering. In Capitalism, that type of property is the means of production, and only by collective management and ownership do we evade the evils of individual ownership.
Socialism is advantageous in multiple degrees. It gives the worker the whole product of their labors, which cuts crime, feeds families, and sustains communities. It allows the worker to manage the industry according to their interests, which abolishes unemployment, protects the environment, and provides housing and bread for all. If humanity has had the right to reorganize property rights in the past -- shouldn't we do this, too, where it increases human happiness and liberty?
This argument has been simplified. I've left out how society can abolish Capitalism and create Socialism. That deserves its own discussion. I'm here only concerned with whether society would better provide for humanity with Socialism as opposed to Capitalism.