
People conflate socialism with welfare and social services. Private ownership allows many actors to move money where they think there’s value, usually socialist friendly countries skew authoritarian, I think people should be able to employ people and own private capital. I think the burden is on other people who want to limit what agreements people can engage in.
I wouldn’t give it too much credit. But lots of people believe that the market’s “natural” pricing gives information about where resources are most needed. For instance, milk can be used for yogurt or cheese. If more people are buying cheese then companies must raise the price to stave off a shortage. This increased price means the company can put more money into cheese rather than milk. The idea boils down to free markets creating pricing that keeps commodities in an equilibrium
The counter argument would probably attack the idea of creating pricing floors and ceilings, if you make rents artificially low then developers are less likely to create more housing, people will get apartments larger than they need, and it will result in inefficiencies that make things worse in the long run. It partly depends on specifically what you mean by socialism, I’m just using price controls as an example
But without regulation of markets you get monopolies, you get over reaching companies that buy up all the housing and now that they own everything they jack up all the prices. They refuse to build more housing or make it affordable so the public suffers. You need regulation or else human greed ruins everything
Bear in mind I’m just making the arguments I think an Austrian economist would make: the next line of reasoning might be that monopolies cannot form under true free markets creating pricing conditions because someone will compete with lower pricing or better quality. Government regulations, often lobbied for by large corporations, are what creates the conditions for these types of companies to gatekeep their niche