But "socialism" is a scary word

Socialism is scary and way worse than capitalism in many ways

What you're thinking of is social democracy.

minimum wage, universal healthcare, all the nice stuff here in Europe is social-democratic, not socialist

The only real problem I have with capitalism is the people that refuse to consider any other way of operating, refuse to rein it in, or immediately make it a binary choice between capitalism and “scary” communism.

Economic systems don’t need to be corralled into boxes and never be allowed cross lines. The people forcing that take are the ones profiting from the status quo, by power and/or wealth.

Any of the systems can be combined, the problem is fight against greed that makes people bend the system to funnel power money to a specific group. Whether it be the dictator and his cronies or a bunch of oligarchs. If this cannot be prevented, then no system will work without eventually crushing the average person.

Socialism and capitalism have a lot of overlap. This belief and meme that they are completely separate is incredibly simple-minded and indicative of US thinking patterns. US Americans have had it beaten into their heads that there are only two sides for so long that it permeates their very being.

To have a fair system, components of multiple philosophies and systems will have to be mixed. Treating capitalism as all bad is plain dumb.

I mean it's a tweet. The very essence isn't long from and open to discussion of every permutation of capitalism. It's like taking a snarky sarcastic comment and fully flushing it out and realizing there are hella holes in the comedy. Well yeah. There are ways to make it work. But those ways are being ignored for the profits. Which is implied in the sarcasm.
- So I can reduce anything complex to a misrepresentation, tweet it, and claim "well, you know what I mean right? I don't have enough characters to express my actual belief, so this is fine". Got it.

People don't realize that not every implementation of Socialist policies have to involve a vanguardist dictatorship like China or USSR (which is what almost every American have in mind when they think of "Socialism")

Well it depends on how you define "socialism" which is used to mean anything from a socialist policy to a fully socialist society. For some socialist policies, you can simply vote in some socialists into a parliamentary system and get them to pass some.

But there's never been enough socialists peacefully voted into power to make a fully socialist/communist society, so those attempts have always come at the barrel of a gun, which so far has always resulted in an authoritarian regime.

I'd love to see one actually get voted into power someday, but I have a feeling I will be waiting for a very long time.
- There are many examples of elections won by socialist/communist parties. There would have been more of they weren't outlawed or suppressed historically.
  
  There are also examples of revolutions that didn't end in authoritarian regimes, for example the ones that ended in anarchist communities.
I'm sorry but calling the USSR a "vanguardist dictatorship" is just not historically accurate. Plenty of democratic mechanisms in the USSR, at any rate much better than anything else we've had so far. For a dictatorship, it dissolved itself quite peacefully didn't it?

Sadly, attempts at socialism in which workers didn't take the power of the state, ended up like Salvador Allende in Chile, like Mosaddegh in Iran, like the Spanish Second Republic... Idealism only gets you so far, sadly.
- Plenty of democratic mechanisms in the USSR, at any rate much better than anything else we’ve had so far.
  
  Fucking lmao
  
  For a dictatorship, it dissolved itself quite peacefully didn’t it?
  
  I'm sure you'd say the same about Pinochet, wouldn't you? :)
  
  Sadly, attempts at socialism in which workers didn’t take the power of the state, ended up like Salvador Allende in Chile,
  
  Yes, if only Allende was a dictator, THEN he wouldn't have trusted Pinochet. That was what planted that seed of trust in Allende's heart - not being a dictator.
  
  like Mosaddegh in Iran,
  
  Ah, yes, when Social Democrats are overthrown by Western powers, they're good comrades; any other time, they're social fascists.
  
  like the Spanish Second Republic
  
  The same Spanish Second Republic which was backstabbed and destroyed by Soviet-bootlicking MLs?
- While the soviets did ostensibly appear to have democratic structures, the reality was that the democracy was a fascade at best.
- We can at least agree that it was a dictatorship under Stalin, right?

We're angry about unbridled end-stage capitalism

Just like with everything in life, there's a right amount of something and its not zero. Properly regulated free market is probably the best economic system we've come up with. I challenge you to come up with a better system.

Its the fact that we've voted in greedy leaders and have such lax rules about lobbying and open bribery that's allowed so much shit to happen.

Greedy people vote for greedy leaders. Money mattered more than morals in at least the last federal elections since 2000.
This might be a better system.
By the way, commerce is not the same thing as capitalism.
- It's not but it can't be divorced form capitalism either.
  
  A farmer does not produce grain out of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it to provide for his family's needs and wants, maybe new clothes for his kids or a new stove, etc. We work jobs to get paid so we can feed ourselves and our families and maybe buy something nice or shiny once in a while and save for retirement.
  
  Production of commodities and services, profit-motive, capital accumulation, If that's not the basis of capitalism, I'm not sure what is?

No....not everyone hates capitalism. Everyone hates uncontrolled capitalism.

Socialism isn't some magical bandaid that will make everything better. It has a shit ton of it's own problems and downfalls...nearly all of which are conveniently glossed over by leftists.

Then you have a fundamental problem. Capitalists hate control. They hate regulation. They hate competition. And they spend a lot of money in power trying to get rid of all of it. The system is broken by design. Or rather, it was designed to benefit someone who is not you.
- ~~capitalists~~ the upper class / those in power. This exists in communism and every other system as well.
- So the government who regulates is simultaneously the enemy of and the definition of capitalists?
You clearly have never read anything about it, so I’d be curious to know specifically which part of socialist theory you disagree with.

Everyone hates uncontrolled capitalism

Yeah, that's capitalism. By definition, capitalism demands to be uncontrolled and without rules to bring the most profit. So when you're done pulling stuff out of thin air, let us know
- In that case why do we have so many good examples of regulation in capitalist systems, the most effective being the "Scandinavian model" countries which effectively blended large amounts of socialism into a capitalist system and enjoy the best health and happiness rates in the world?
  
  Indeed there is no such thing as an unregulated capitalist economy anywhere in the world. They all have staggering amounts of regulation.
- But have you read enough theory? I think you need to read more of the theory.
- I don't think it's the theory most people disagree with.
I hate that people are shit and will ruin any economic/political system no matter how high-minded it may have otherwise been.

Similarly capitalism wouldn't be a burning pile of diapers and old wigs if those involved didn't have a complete and total disregard-bordering-on-antipathy for humanity and the common good.
- Socialism invariably fails and ends ups corrupted into some shithole authoritarianism decorated with leftie-sounding slogans. It is however meant to do the greatest good for the greatest number, it's just that in practice in the real world it's crap at it so it doesn't work because of human nature.
  
  Capitalism doesn't even try to do the greatest good for the greatest number - it's quite literally The Sociopath's Credo: "do what's best for yourself and screw what's good for everybody else"
  
  Ultimately they both fail at making most people's lives better, but Capitalism doesn't even try.
  
  The best we've achieved has been Capitalism narrowly applied to just Trade and overseen by some other separate political theory that actually tries in some way to go towards the greatest good for the greatest number, such as Social Democracy, but as we've been seeing right now in realtime, with enough time Capitalism ultimately grounds down such bounds and oversight and corrupts everything.
To me, left means progressive reform, so leftists definitely aren't the anarchists or authoritarians who rant all day and night about the capitalism boogeyman.

Propaganda works

You can tell by some of these comments
"There was a famine in China, which means we now only can have the most extreme forms of capitalism!" - 70% of the propaganda.
- "It's either fully privatised Healthcare or it's Stalinism"

Where funny?

It's here in the comments by someone called the word police. I think they are cousins of the wambulamce.
It's not funny, but it's still irony.
- Memes are supposed to be funny. I didn't laugh at this

Socialism won't keep dragons from hoarding their gold. You would just be taken advantage of for the same thing, your labor, through a different channel.

Which channel specifically are you referring to?

Your comment smells of "enlightened cantrist trying to sound reasonable (but failing at it)"
- What a dumb question. Ya'll really act like that dude is obligated to give you a free economics lesson with such a vague pointless question.
  
  On a broad scale any economy is simply how money is created and used.
  
  When the federal state has complete control over the money supply and dictates how it is allocated to firms in various markets, as is the case in both "socialist" dictatorships and some highly involved social democracies: the channel through which your labor is bought is purely through the government via offices and contract bids with industry suits attempting to maximize profits for themselves.
  
  When the federal state takes a more unregulated hands off approach, letting banks create money organically through loans and only taxing enough to fund itself: the channel through which your labor is bought is purely through industry suits attempting to maximize profits for themselves.
  
  Anarchist Society theoretically works very different, but they tend to only exist for about 5 minutes before devolving into the former case.
  
  When the federal state takes a highly regulated and invested approach ("The Market System"), much like a social democracy, where money supply quickly becomes convoluted but strictly managed based on economic needs: your labor is bought via your association to one or more of a series of small firms competing to fill demands to maximize profits for themselves. Some industries are allowed to operate at larger "economy of scale" for the sake of efficiency but ideally such a state wouldn't allow businesses to grow too large and would tax them such that doing so much more work would yield fast diminishing returns on investment.
  
  And then like a million more grey inbetweens.
As an Indian guy, I-
Yes...

"Everything is fucked.... how can this be?!"

Well, sometimes events pushed into motion or accelerated by a "root cause" develop lives of their own. Without concerted effort neither with capitalism nor with the absence/alternative of/to capitalism will we solve climate change or patriarchy.

Patriarchy appears to have been solved in Rojava/Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Though I'm afraid not for much longer.
- While I welcome some developments in NE Syria, this is propaganda.

Here’s an idea from WAAAAY out there, but what if they both suck? Because it’s just bad logic to assume that one is good because the other is bad.

We have no choice but to compare imperfect systems and pick something.

Quick! Name a negative life experience capitalists experience that socialists don’t.

American healthcare?
- There’s nothing capitalist about American healthcare. If we had a free market I’d be able to buy my antidepressants ($15/mo) without seeing a doctor ($120).
Crippling medical debt.
- Crippling student debt
- By “crippling” here you mean unable to participate in the market. That’s the thing that’s crippled when debt affects a person’s life.
  
  A socialist had no access to the market anyway. They’re born into that crippled state.
I need to rate my employees based on a matrix with 9 fields so my boss can decide whom to fire because made up numbers are not as high as they anticipated them to be.
Raises below inflation
- Leading to lack of material resources?
  
  Here’s some socialists feeling the effects of centrally-controlled economic distributuon:

So glad to see some actual sanity in these comments in response to the ridiculous OP.