I'm not a socialist. I think both socialism and capitalism have deep flaws, primarily based on their theory of value, which does not recognise any intrinsic value of ecosystems.
On this point, Herman Daly is worth reading. He was, I think, a relatively orthodox thinker when he...

became a senior economist at the world bank but became convinced of the problems of conventional economics. He could be considered one of the fathers of ecological economics.
He's an enjoyable read if you like that kind of thing.

He says that ecological economics is just good economics - maintain capital and spend income. He just applies that thinking to natural capital, social capital etc. It boils down to - don't take more resources than nature can replenish in a year, don't put out more waste than

nature can assimilate, and only use non-renewable resources to develop renewable alternatives.
He talks about the 3 legs of an economy - allocation, distribution and scale. Capitalism, he says, is good at efficient allocation - better, in any event, than a command economy

where shortages of essentials are commonplace because central planners cannot respond to people's changing needs.
However it is poor at distribution (which is why we have distributive taxation) and really bad at scale - the overall size of the economy relative to the ecosystem.

This relates to the growth imperative in capitalism, which quickly leads to over-exploitation and pollution.
Daly's view is that we need to develop a steady state economy if we are to live in balance with the planet ie address the problem of scale. I agree.

That implies better distribution of resources, as it means we cannot just grow ourselves out of inequality. This is especially true on a global scale - if everyone lived like we do in the west, we would have a very rapid ecological breakdown. We already see it happening.

The question we need to answer is, "who in the world lives within the per capita carrying capacity of the planet, and what can we learn from them?"