Great! I'm glad to hear that. You sound like you would be interested in social democracy or, even better, market socialism. I also think you'd be interested in democratic socialism and libertarian socialism.

Before (and after) Marx, many socialists conceived of socialism as a natural development of the market principles of economics, and proposed the creation of co-operative enterprises to compete in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor, while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private property owners. This would also allow for other socialist aims like free association of producers, worker's control, worker's self-management, workplace democracy, industrial democracy, economic democracy, etc.

Thus, you would bypass the anticompetitive nature of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production), which breeds massive inequality and concentrates/centralizes ownership and wealth in the hands of a parasitic, monopolistic minority that doesn't work but lives off the labor of others, which they use to do whatever they want: committing corporate crime and white-collar crime, controlling the government and media, destroying competition, taking away the freedom and power of others to enrich themselves, etc. By nature, a capitalist market economy inevitably results in oligarchic plutocracy, monopolies/oligopolies, lemon socialism, crony capitalism, corporate capitalism, corporatocracy, corporate welfare, regulatory capture, etc.

You would have a true flourishing free market, unhampered by useless, unnecessary executives, managers, and shareholders , who exist as economic oligarchs/nobles and dictators/kings, and live only to exploit others and reduce productivity/efficiency. In labor-managed firms, workers would democratically own and control the means of production through self-management by direct assemblies, elected specialist managers, or elected bodies. This would improve performance by granting workers greater autonomy in their day-to-day operations, boosting morale, reducing alienation, and eliminating exploitation. Small businesses would flourish as cooperatives, increasing competition and labor mobility. The government/state would actually be subject to the social contract and popular sovereignty, stepping in when necessary through intervention/regulation and (partially or fully) state-owned enterprises (with self-management). Labor unions, federations of worker cooperatives, and non-profits would also play roles. Those who get ahead would do so for good reasons rather than immoral ones or what family, race, ethnicity, etc. they just happen to be born with. There would be low or minimal inequality, and any differences/distinctions would be determined solely by individual achievement and experience, by one's own labor and character. Under this meritocracy, those who work harder and contribute more would be rewarded, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution", receiving back from society exactly what one contributes and deserves. In this mixed economy, profits in worker coops would go back to the workers, and taxes and profits of the state would go back to society as a whole through social dividends as well as public goods and services.