I had to re-check what I said. I said alternatives to markets that create externalities. These are, in fact, markets. They just don't dump costs off the books.

That said, I agree. No "socialist" economic system has been able to not have markets. This is exactly my point: trying to implement a "pure" form of "socialism" is a foolish game. Much like trying to implement a "pure" form of "capitalism" is a foolish game.

Much better, to keep torturing metaphors, to allow iron to sharpen iron. The best outcome is achieved, I think, by allowing the debate to endlessly continue.

Unfortunately for you, we live in the world where "socialist" anything is the work of evildoers in the minds of many older Americans. So you're going to have to choose a different word if you want to be not only understood but also to avoid reflexive contrarianism.

May I suggest "Overton window?" It's scientistic enough that you could overload it to your use of "socialist" here. E.g., "We need to shift the Overton window to include C suite diversification." You won't get instead comprehension. But you'll at least get heads nodding instead of old grumps yelling their fears at you.