>Note: That's the means of production out of private hands version of socialism
There is no such version of socialism. Such systems have existed but they sure as hell were not socialist - indeed they outright admitted to not being socialist, they were supposed to be a transitional state toward it.
Socialism's proper meaning is the means of production in the hands of WORKERS. That' STILL private, the state as a proxy for workers certainly didn't work - if anything it was even *worse* than private bosses because now the entity that is supposed to regulate industry and reign in the excesses off business owners WAS the business owner.
But worker-owned coops have been a resounding success everywhere they have been tried, they actually decentralize power MORE than capitalism does - and they are economically more successful than either.
Argentina's capitalist economy collapsed in 2007. Workers took over the abandoned factories and businesses where capitalists were not able to make a profit, and ran them as coops. Despite the same economic conditions that killed the capitalist industries, the worker owned socialist industries flourished. Today there are more than 20-thousand such worker-owned coops in Argentina, they make up over 85% of the country's GDP, they employ more than all other businesses and government combined.
Part of why it worked so well is that they all shared the profits, so all those workers suddenly earned rather more than they did when an "owner" was skimming most of it, which meant they had money to spend - which meant there was demand and markets for the OTHER coops, whose workers then made more profit, which they spent in turn, creating a massive race-to-the-top economy that saved argentina from the brink of a depression.
That's how you do "worker owner" socialism that works.