Sure, you might disagree that socialism is possible without big government, but that has nothing to do with the definition. My only point is that it doesn't inherently have anything to do with control. The problem with saying that socialism means big government is it associates it with decades of red-scare propaganda and makes all discussion impossible.
> If you are talking about workers being "shareholders" then that's still capitalism.
Not really, if the workers have ownership over the company and the capital, then they "own the means of production".
> The fundamental problem we are dealing with is allocation of resources, and the masses not being sufficiently informed to make decisions. Until you solve that problem every system you put in place corrupts, some worse than others and some with few mechanisms for correction and recovery.
Sure, resource allocation is hard, but "lets just let the rich/monarchs/the lizard people decide" is a cop-out.
For what it's worth, you should probably engage with some 'real' socialist literature beyond just sound bites from Twitter. Many of these questions are considered. Richard Wolff might be an interesting starting point.