The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

The meme said, "the means of production." It did not say, "every, single means of production."

The OP could have meant anything from workers electing their CEOs in 51% of the steel mills, smelteries, oil rigs, cinemas, restaurants, etc. all the way up to 100% like you decided to assume.

But honestly, it makes very little sense to read 100% into this, especially with your wording of "good or service-providing entity".

A hell of a lot of "good or service-providing entities" are sole proprietorships, which are in a blurry gray area between private ownership and cooperative ownership. On the one hand, many capitalists started out as sole proprietors. On the other hand, by owning one's own means of production, a sole proprietor is both worker and owner, fitting perfectly in the definition of socialism. In fact, I would argue that the sole proprietor doesn't really become a socialist or a capitalist until another worker joins the business and it becomes a cooperative or a private company. Until then, the distinction is meaningless.

It is private in case you didnt know (police) It is just not on paper

The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don't make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that's how I interpret it but there's probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.

Socialism is when capitalism

Ah, you mean the elite, wealthy, oligarch class, Xi Jinping.

The People's™ Absolute monarchy

Seriously it's insane how people can unironically lie to themselves. Thy literally said "socialism is not for the workers" lmfaoo

Law firms are so so so not socialist.

Partnerships only involve a few select attorneys at a firm, associate attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants, and every other role is not part of the partnership, and has no stake other than their vested interest in getting their paycheck (the same as any employee).

"Big Law" firms have thousands of employees excluded from any partnerships including billable (associates, paralegals) and non billable (legal assistants, HR, IT) staff, the partnership is more of a private ownership club where people are accepted mostly on vibes and sometimes, rarely, on merit.

The partnership structure is pretty antithetical to socialism, since it's structured in a way to exclude people deemed not worthy of receiving profits (But still somehow needed to make the profits??).

TL;DR: a small group of owner operators within a larger company is decidedly capitalist.

karl marx only invented socialism for rich people, read theory shitlib

I would actually argue that money -- and not human nature -- is the point of failure. To be more specific, money's capacity for growth.

The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human's ability to labor.

And when you have different piles of money growing at different rates with no upper limit, you have some growing so fast that they become cancerous, sucking the resources out of the entire system.

It's both better and worse having this problem than having one of human nature. Worse because growth is an even more universal part of nature than greed. (So we can't get rid of it.) Better because it's something we are intimately familiar with trying to contain. We have surgeries for rapid cellular growths. We have antibiotics for rapid bacterial growths. We have entire forestry organizations that release hunting licenses dedicated to containing rapid deer population growth.

Growth is an incredibly simple, two-dimensional graph, and it's easy to tell when we're controlling a growth vs succumbing to it.

the biggest difference was the war

Not really.

only if you are strictly comparing it with full-force no-brakes capitalism