Within the context of one person's career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people's relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you've all done too well and it's to "cut labor costs" while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you'd gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.

Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.

Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won't have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it's something much easier for liberals to stomach.

Not saying I'm in favor of it, but there's still market socialism out there as a political stance

The idea of centrally planned economy ignores the lessons of the past. Bronze Age empires and recent examples all display universal inability to adjust to changes.

It’s the same magical thinking as the blind belief in market forces exhibits.
Priests of “invisible hand of market” ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia, believing that markets will just magically fix everything in time for it to matter.
Preachers of central planning ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia (and yes, there is a market, as long as there is goods and services exchange, however indirect) by believing they will have all the relevant information and the capacity to process it in time for it to matter.

Neither is true. Neither school of thought even attempted to show itself to be true.

I think the better way would be a centrally planned economy for some goods (electricity, "normal" food, health, ...) and something more "free" for the rest of the market. Bread has a marked price but a PS5 doesn't.