The trouble with Marx is that his theory of Capitalism purports to be "scientific".  It pretends to have an irresistible inevitability: socio-economic development inevitably leads from Feudalism through Capitalism to Socialism.  Dialectical materialism surely deserves some credence; however, it is by no means deterministic.  If, using mass media, Capitalism can transform the masses from Homo Sapiens into TV-controlled zombies, then the zombies will not develop the political consciousness to overthrow Capitalism and install Socialism.

The true dynamo of social development is morality.  Can it be right for one individual or group to be parasitic on another?  If the answer to this question is No, then Capitalism is immoral, and must be swept away in favour of a socio-economic system which does not incorporate this evil.  Those who are exploited, the working-class, must unite to overthrow the ruling class, or more peaceably, to organise alternative structures of production, distribution and exchange which do not involve this exploitation.

Socialism, the state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, where the state is the "dictatorship of the proletariat", inevitably risks installing corruptible elites.  The concentration of power is Evil: absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Socialism implies a concentration of power.  To alleviate the exploitation of the working-class one does not inevitably need to conceive of such a system.  What follows logically, minimally, from Marx is three categories of employment: self-employment, collective self-employment (cooperatives) and state employment.

There seems no reason why individuals should not freely choose in which of these categories to operate.  Transitions from one category to another would have to be marked by changes in arrangements for pensions etc, but there seems no need for the State to prohibit the self-employed and collectively self-employed from operating in a free market.  Capital/loans for these two groups can be handled by banking arrangements very similar to those that operate today, minus the profit motive.

How is capital to be managed without exploitation?  I propose a system in which an individuals store of "pounds-days" is tracked by the banking system.  The guiding principle must be that one cannot borrow what one previously has not lent.  If I have £1000 in the bank for 10 days I have £10,000-days, so I'm allowed to borrow £100 for 100 days or £10 for 1000 days. 

To strike a balance between the "anarchy of the market" and the tyranny and unresponsiveness of the "command economy" is problematic.  Competition between state employment and other forms needs some guiding principles.  Let's look at some examples to illuminate the problems: the postal system needs to be monolithic because it is uneconomic to deliver mail to outlying areas.  Water and electricity utilities, health and education also lend themselves to monolithic structures but perhaps with less compelling rationales than the postal service.  Individual and collective self-employment can be capitalised through the current banking system.  The bank managers can be free to lend capital to those enterprises which seem likely to thrive, run by individuals with proven track records, with socially valuable aims.  They should be paid by results, that is, proportionally to the increase in capital that they have generated during the last year, but also indexed by a factor determined by plebiscite which would continuously measure social goals.  If the public values rubber ducks more than a public health service, so be it!

It would seem reasonable to oblige all citizens to keep their money in a bank of their choice so that the pool of capital would be maximised.  All transactions of over £100 say would have to be via a bank account.  This would make life harder for gangsters but would not significantly impede the rights of individuals to use their money.