You could phase in ownership. Anyway, cooperative and employee owned companies already exist so a model could be made off of one of those. Plus, for larger companies the amount of shares given to new hires would be a small fraction. Arguably the company would also have a lot more money to pay employees with when there is nobody at the top siphoning off funds. Employees working together doesn't seem to me to fall under "monolithic society." I would argue that there is little difference between a powerful federal government telling you what to do and a powerful corporation (that owns your job, house, town, or whatever) telling you what to do. Socialized ownership of companies solves the second issue and provides leverage against the first.

It is.

I don't think that would be enough to count as socialist unless all companies, public or not, had the same employee-share system and the working employees as a collective must always have greater than 50% ownership in shares or something like that.

I liberally stated why it wasn't contradictory. I did not invite a debate in whether or not it would work as I am not claiming to be a socialist libertarian. Get some reading comprehension.

Don't be condescending. The original OP is about a Left space.

Read my last sentence again.

Lol. Conservatives make their own versions of social media for "free speech" or "free thought" reasons and then immediately ban anyone not conservative enough. Echo chambers are everywhere, not just on the Left. Reddit conservative subs love to ban too, you just wouldn't know it because of your alignment. If anything, I'd argue that most Left subs don't ban enough Trump supporting morons :)

I can see how it would work out. Socialism is not government control, it's an economic system where all industries are owned by those who work in them. Like Co-ops. It gets rid of the people who do nothing but sit on their ass and skim off the top. Just to be clear, I have no interest in debating if the system would work well or not. I'm just saying it may not be contradictory.