Unpopular Opinion

Socialism assume that companies could work with no centralized ownership which is impossible in real life, it's like the believers of this theory ignore all the human psychology and assume the perfection in the world.

That's like saying democracy can't work because without central ownership the state would fall apart. Socialism isn't one clear cut thing, it's about distributing economic power (more) equally. Strengthening the power of the workers by making company decisions more democratic, involving the workers employed by the company, doesn't seem infeasible.

A simple way to debunk your claims is to simply look at real life examples that show it actually exists, and hope the goalposts will not move ala "but it wasn't large scale so it doesn't count"

1 - SCOP is a type of company in France where employees are owners of the company. This is not yet socialism although it shares the philosophy/ideals. There is no hierarchy in a SCOP. Duralex, french makers of glassware just recently changed their structure to become a worker owned SCOP. Motion Twin, the company behind the game Dead Cells has been a SCOP for years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

2 - In the capitalist world it is indeed hard to emancipate from the interconnection with everyone and everything, which is why revolutionaries' main goal is to destroy capitalism. You can't envision a different type of organisation for society because capitalism has become so prevalent it tries to impose itself as the only solution. Look for smaller scale examples of autonomous, self sufficient communities, I'm not talking about uncontacted native tribes, there are, all over the world, tons of examples of small communities trying to rethink how we can restructure society away from the capital. Extrapolate from these examples and you'll have a glimpse of how this could work at a larger scale.

companies could work with no centralized ownership* which is impossible in real life*,

what? That's how my housing org works. There is a very, very small administration and all the sectors are democratically run by the people who live there.

I typically don't talk politics in this account, as I hate intrusive politics, but...

I'm upvoting this solely because the opinion is unpopular in Lemmy, even if really popular IRL.

Socialism assume that companies could work with no centralized ownership

Even under capitalism you have companies that work without centralised ownership. They're called "state-owned enterprises".

I'm not sure but I think that you're conflating ownership with control.

[from the title] beautiful [...]
it’s like the believers of this theory ignore all the human psychology and assume the perfection in the world.

Socialism is not "pretty". It is not the result of humans being so happy and sharing and caring that they'll happily share whatever power they get on their hands. Instead, it's the result of people being so power-hungry and miser that they'll do everything for power - even sharing it.

Anarcho-Capitalisim assume that it’s possible to live in 100% autonomous society while ignoring all the big issues(unfair laws, corruption in law and protection agencies, …etc)

I'm not ancap and I have a thousand pieces of criticism against it, however that is a straw man even worse than the above.

Anarcho-capitalists don't "ignore" those issues; they claim that capitalism can solve those issues, with the hand of the free market ensuring fair laws, creating mechanisms against corruption, all that jizz.

(Their mistake is in another level - they don't realise that the hand of the market doesn't give a fuck about human well-being. Plus it has Parkinson's.)

Or, you lack the knowledge, awareness, or ability to understand the concept, despite all the information available on the web and the many published books on the topic.

Sorry mate, this is a pretty common opinion overall. Might merit unpopular on lemmy, but even the rather confrontational wording you used isn't unknown on lemmy, and it's far gentler than happens elsewhere.

I don't even disagree with you, though I don't agree with the exact expression of it you gave. I would say that both systems are idealistic, and would require a lot more evolution of human thinking and even human nature before they could be implemented in the real world. And I say that as someone that leans socialist pretty hard.

Where I would disagree hard is that they're any less realistic than anything else currently used. Can't be any worse than the oligarchies that are trying hard to take over everything; and as an economic system, socialism wouldn't be any worse than capitalism for sure.