State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we're talking about a bourgeois state.

If a king rides through a village and says, "I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view." Is that "collective ownership" because the land is now held by the state? Is that "socialism?"

Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just "socialism is when the government does stuff" with extra steps.