There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would “own” it but the workers would still direct it.
In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it’s not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.
In other words, the state owns it, and the workers doesn’t. In yet more words, it’s something only tankies, fascists and capitalists would call “socialism” - but not actual socialists.
There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would “own” it but the workers would still direct it.
In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it’s not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.
The word ‘union’ kind of brings more ring to the “workers’ ownership” in that case. ‘State’ sounds spooky.
Your example is unheard to me tho. Kinda interesting how it works out.
In other words, the state owns it, and the workers doesn’t. In yet more words, it’s something only tankies, fascists and capitalists would call “socialism” - but not actual socialists.