Just overall economic productivity and macroeconomic performance. When I brought up democratization of the workplace and democratic socialism to this centrist person who's (I think) a liberal socially and centre right capitalist economically, he was saying that he wasn't opposed to democratic socialism morally/philosophically and that it would probably be better if it was the most viable option, but that in his opinion it would be more inefficient economically than private capitalism, generally.
I said it seems premature to assert that when it's not like we have many available models or States implementing democratic socialism to analyse and compare it.
To be perfectly honest, if you're looking for mathematical proofs and whatnot of efficiency, I'm not the best source at all to provide that. There are perhaps some sources out there that examine this, but it is absolutely premature to talk definitively about socialist efficiency being lower. Further, socialism in one country does not work. The country would be attacked by capitalist powers who would work with internal subversive, elite interests to undermine the working class. Then the resources that could be used to promote social and material development would be diverted to things like defense and the like.
And when we talk about efficiency, what are we talking about? How efficient is it to be literally killing the planet we live on? How efficient is it that food is thrown away and industrial capacity goes unused because money can't be made, while people starve and millions are unemployed? When people get killed because of the needs of the system (police violence, war, etc.), is that an efficient use of human capital? You can go on and on with this.
Monarchists derived their "value" from physical power and saying "god let them reign"
So no, shut the hell up with this sloppy bullshyt.
If you wanna use metaphors, use them properly.
As if capitalists don't use physical force... it's called the police and the military
You say that
in retrospect because in 2015, monarchy as the dominant form of government is mostly discredited. You wouldn't be dismissing monarchy back in 1615 too much, because the dominant ideas of that time were those of the ruling class at the time... just as in 2015, you trumpet the ideas of the ruling class. Literally parrot all their talking points.
Its why the Marshall Plan had to be done.
Poor and uneducated people see it as a way out to account for their own failures and misfortunes instead of providing incentives to promote and stimulate growth and self-sustenance.
A lot of post WW2 countries flirted with communism because they thought they wanted to "help everyone" when in reality, they needed to stop resenting the next man and learn to use their resources to create better opportunities.
A lot of post WW2 countries also kinda liked monarchies so theyre drawn to the whole "central leadership" aspect.
Charting your own future is difficult for most to undestand
Hmmm...
So in one thread, socialism is the purview of elitist intellectuals who live in ivory towers and are disconnected from the real world.
Now in this thread, you claim that "poor and uneducated people" champion it.
It can't be both. But you'll play both sides on that because you just want to try to arrogantly dismiss socialism and its proponents. Saying it's "impossible" and "can never happen" and "is unrealistic." Absolutely absurd considering if you study history, it is almost literally seeing what was once seen as "impossible" and "unrealistic" being swatted away as it is overcome.
No. Its not. Its what happens when you're successful. There are no guaranteed winners
Same lame, Social Darwinist-style rhetoric.
And if the workers at those companies went on strike, what would happen to that company? How successful would it be?
Would profits still be generated without the workforce?
Labor is the source of profits.
You can't save everyone and I need you to say this
That's fine if that's your position. That's your attitude because you're not in a precarious position in this system. It's working pretty good for you. Unless you have a big heart, you won't be convinced to fight for socialism if economic democracy is against your material interests. I'm not hating on that 
(just as the aristocracy and slaveholding classes couldn't be expected to militantly oppose the systems that benefited them), it is what it is.
But you're out here spewing garbage to get the working class to doubt its own power and own capability. Telling it that this is the best it can hope for... a servile, precarious life under the exploitative rule of the bourgeoisie. That shyt isn't going to fly.
Your position can be that everyone can't be saved. But those people who the system cannot or will not save? They have every right to buck it, and anyone who tries to keep them down.
Dont worry bout answering that, lets look a your claim that "too few/too many" are left outside. 
