I think I found a way that Capitalism becomes Socialism but stays Capitalist. Can

you lend me your scrutiny? Keep in mind: Money is labor-value encapsulated into monetary units.

For instance, let's say you're a photographer. So: you sell your labor to a client. Your labor: You photograph their wedding and supply them with pictures. In turn, they barter with you something of equal value. We use dollars.

The dollar amount they barter with you should—I repeat: should—equate with the labor-value of your work.

With that in mind, let's take that principle and apply it to all laymen.

Let's say that all laymen decide to not stoop to minimum wage.

So: The laymen decide to start selling their labor. And, like before, they are compensated for their labor with a monetary value equal to their labor-value. However, if they are selling their labor, this implies that they get to evaluate what their labor is worth. And if that is true: that means that if all laymen unite and uniformly concert to sell their labor at a standardized, reasoned out price, a Capitalist economy becomes Socialist but stays Capitalist.

After all, no Government was involved. This is still market behavior.
I wish to add: I'm not saying that this is a likely possibility—but I am saying it’s a technical possibility.
[I decided to re-post this question because I thought my grammar in the previous post was insufficient.]
How do all laymen uniformly concert to sell their labor at a standardized, reasoned out price?

I imagine they could use some sort of network via the internet. Register there. And carry on.
(((majgross)))

Perhaps the network via Internet I later mentioned could come up with some criteria for evaluating the labor.

Further: I think this additional bartering may be needed. The laymen doesn't get much say in the amount he is compensated for selling his labor. They may need that right.
(((63vette)))

Then why shouldn't we correct what the labor-unions got wrong?