No, I'm objecting because you're collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word "socialism."

A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That's capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.

Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. "Workers democratically control the means of production" is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.

That's why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You're treating them as interchangeable.

Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word "socialism" and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.

And the reason I'm ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.