The problem with this is businesses require capital and you can’t expect labour to be able to provide it. A system that compensates the investment in business with nothing at all won’t get that investment in business. If we’re trying to use something akin to the current job market we have to ask how companies are created within it. The best answer I can come up with is some sort of dystopian form of government picked winners where tax money replaced investment capital.

> The best answer I can come up with is some sort of dystopian form of government picked winners where tax money replaced investment capital

if you squint a bit, that's what has been happening in the past 4 or so years considering the the amount of money the feds pumped into money markets that filtered through venture capital funds. This is one of Yanis' postulation: that businesses that require capital don't have to rely on profits, and can instead benefit from money printing; and I'll put up Uber as exhibit A.

You can have the government act as venture capital if that is truly necessary. Otherwise labour does provide capital through the surplus, and loans can fill in the blanks.

Labour can potentially provide some capital but the mechanism by which it has to do so in the socialist system would be the wildly impractical an equal amount from each labourer. Anything that causes investment to break one worker, one share for the ownership structure of the business is not allowed. This means if some workers have enough capital to invest they aren't going to do so since it doesn't give them any practical returns. Only if all workers can agree on what to invest and all workers can and will do so will the required ownership structure work with investment from workers.