I am aware; I was in fact a Marxist, not a pre-Marxist socialist or anarcho-communist, much less a third positionist. The problem is the meaning of the word "corporation" in different languages, a "syndicate" in the [European] continental tradition, as you mentioned. I am referring to the English meaning of the word as the legal status of a business granted by the state, which is basically a distinction without a difference, I know. But yes, I am aware that corporations are, by definition, collectively owned, hence my own constant arguments with people who demand collective ownership always being "we already have that!" I think we can both agree that the GOP is a statist party regardless; they both are.

Marx's own definition of socialism was "state capitalism," in other words, a state monopoly on the means of production, and the state was to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, hence the worker ownership. His issue was with "private" monopolies, because he didn't really know how things worked (he also contradicted himself a lot, another reason I abandoned the ideology). Likewise, his own definition of "capitalism" was more in line with the English definition of "corporatism," and not a free market. The Marxist definitions appear to be what people are working with in the modern day, hence all the misunderstandings.