Look, socialism is the idea of a society based on sharing. Is there something wrong with that?
The dictionary definition specifies a society in which the means of production is publicly owned. Here's a good start:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsSo what's the means of production? It's the stuff for making the stuff you need -- the factories, the farms, and so on. It's not your toothbrush or your teddy bear or even your pickup truck or your house.
And who's the public? It's you, but mostly it's everyone. It can be a collective, but a collective is really only a way of making sure everyone does something and everyone gets something. It can be the government, but only if it's good government, and everyone is included -- everyone gets to decide, and everyone gets some. If we really want socialism we search for a set-up that's fair.
It has nothing to do with the motivation for work, but rather with making sure everyone benefits from what everyone else does.
Think of the desire for socialism as based on what they taught you about sharing in Kindergarten. Sharing is caring -- when you share, you show that you want the other person to be happy as you are happy. Remember? Sharing was a good thing in Kindergarten. If there are only five tricycles for a class of thirty, everyone should get a chance to use them. (And don't tell me that "we don't do things that way in America," especially when you're talking with me in the public library.)
Try to imagine a Kindergarten based on capitalism. We'll give little Johnny all of the toys and all of the books, and everyone else in the class will have to give Johnny more toys and more books if they want to use any of that which is in Johnny's hoard. And then when they're finished using them, they'll have to give them back to Johnny. I'm sure everything will work out just fine.
Now what was the complaint about "socialism" again?