No. Respectfully, you don't understand how money works and the proposal of vaguely applied ten cent terms can't make up for that. Ironically, this means that you also don't understand socialism.

Capitalism is simply the innate nature and structure of the monetary system. The maintenance of the properties of money require capitalism. Otherwise, you will begin to not have money. No matter what word that you use for it. I'm not saying that this is a good thing. It's just a concrete thing.

The more socialism that you apply, especially in terms of shelf goods, the less actual money that you have. Due to how prices will react, what you begin to have is something akin to allotted credits or even just de facto allotted goods. The former which necessarily implies price controls. The only question then is how much food each person will be allotted.

Tell me which companies, ahem, I mean "socialist countries" aim to maximize free GDP allotment (in this case for food) to each individual citizen instead of minimize it to the lowest possible level? Consider a hypothetical wherein this socialist country has 300 million people.

The negatives of capitalism are not because of capitalism. They are because of the structural nature of money, which only maintains value roughly relative to the degree to which a large amount of people don't have it.

Smart countries attempt to maximize socialist benefits without affecting their currency value, in order to control and promote social stability to the best of their ability. But this generally excludes socialism for common goods, or else the characteristics of money begin to change.