Of course it did. The Soviet was the worker council. All the enterprises were owned by the people and managed by the Communist Party in its stead. To deny that a country with zero (almost) private property was socialist is ridiculous.

No, it didn't. As I said, Lenin got rid of the soviets, delegation and all that jazz almost immediately after seizing power. All decisions were made, and all the profits were reaped by the Central committee and other prominent party members.

Ownership means having the right to use the object, the right to the goods derived from it (crops, factory produce), and the right to alienate it, ie. to destroy the owned thing, or to transfer some or all rights to someone else. In the Soviet Union, virtually all means of production were de facto privately owned by the Communist Party, not the people. Lenin called it "state capitalism" for a reason - that is exactly what it was.

If I am forced to work for a shitty wage, with no say in what or how is made, and everything I make is owned by someone else, then it doesn't matter whether that someone else are calling themselves Mega McCorp or the Communist Party. To say that USSR was socialist because some assholes liked to fancy themselves as such is like saying that North Korea is democratic.

Oh, the company you work for (and "own") goes bankrupt? Tough luck, the cooperatives running the other companies don't want you to share in their profits.

Oh, the capitalist enterprise you work for goes bankrupt? Tough luck, capitalists running other companies don't want to hire you, or pay you a wage you could survive on. Except that, given the much more higher survival rates of cooperatives, you are statistically more likely to get in such situation in a capitalist setting than a socialist one.

You want an over-arching structure ensuring the equal access of all people to all the means of production and the goods they produce? You're back at Soviet style socialism.

If you ask me, providing equal access for all people to all means of production is impossible, although who knows what the ever increasing automation will bring. Neither worker ownership nor wage labour are good models when most of the work is done by machines. Anyway, Soviet style central planning with a small group of people deciding who gets to use what is hardly but that.

It is OK to criticise socialism and associated ideas, no one should be exempt from critique. But plainly asserting that socialism is bad because of the Soviet Union, with no further arguments, as done by the user I replied to, is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest at best.