Whilst you're correct about these countries not being socialist, you're wrong about what socialism is.
No, actually you've got this backwards. I'll explain in detail below.
What you have described is fascism, the merger of corporate and state power.
No, it's not. Fascism (a term coined by Benito Mussolini) specifically references a bundle making a stronger whole. It's not an economic system so much as it is a governing system, so it's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. Also, a tangentially fun fact, (because a lot of people, including yourself, misunderstand these terms) racism employed by the Nazi party is not central to fascism. Mussolini thought of racism as a distraction, though a strong national identity, regardless of race, is central to fascism. Mussolini's wife, who put a lot of effort into establishing fascism, was in fact a practicing Jew.
If you want a good idea what fascism would look like in modern times, watch that show Man in the High Castle. Note how Obergruppenfuhrer Smith's kid is supposed to do well in school for the fatherland, not for himself, and the bad kids were the ones that do it for themselves. That's classic fascism. In terms of economics (which fascism isn't strictly about,) fascism is what I previously described as "mostly socialism", because private businesses could exist, just like they can in Venezuela, but they are discouraged and subject to being nationalized. And in practice, fascism has only superficial differences from stalinism.
Fascism = You have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.
Communism = You have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.
Socialism = You have two cows, you own them and milk them yourself. You share the unused milk with a your neighbour.
Capitalism = You have two cows, your neighbour owns them and all the other cows, you have to milk them and buy the milk from your neighbour.
While this is cute, it doesn't reflect reality. Victor Dhupay, who coined the term communism, would tell you that communism is what you described as socialism. You can use whatever communist philosopher you'd like, such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, etc, (Marx would disagree with you as well, by the way) but I'm going by the people who first defined these terms, not whatever revision somebody else made later, because honestly they often conflict in very confusing ways while using the exact same terms.
And that said, there are many variations on each of these. Your definition of capitalism sounds more like feudalism because it says you have the cows but your neighbor (i.e. the local lord) owns them. That said, it's kind of a crap definition because it implies that you could never own any cows. The US variation of capitalism is (IMO, I wrote it myself) this:
You have no cows, you might inherit two and your parents will teach you how to run a milk business, or if you inherit nothing you could go to college and get a degree in agriculture and then buy two of your neighbors cows and start a business selling milk. But not everybody drinks milk so you'll need to pay a marketer to find more customers, and that marketer will need to pay other people to do his job, ad infinitum.
Socialism is not government ownership, but democratic ownership, where people get more of a say in what a service does.
This is where you're confused, and it's really glaringly obvious if you just pay attention to your own words. In a democracy, what are we voting for? A system of governance. Basically, any kind of rule or regulation, including the manner with which something is distributed, is your de-facto government.
And a variation of a democracy, of course, is a republic, where you elect people to represent your interests and vote on your behalf, which is what basically all "democracies" really are, with limited democracy (for example, referendums are direct democracy, and they exist within basically all republics. For example, the legalization of cannabis in all US states where it happened was the result of a referendum.) Nonetheless, it's ultimately the government that runs everything. So even if we did things exactly as you describe them, it's still government ownership. Though basically every truly socialist economy (i.e. ones where businesses are subject to being taken over by the government, or "democratic ownership" as you prefer to say in your own little doublespeak) is just a dictatorship that calls itself a republic, and while the official party line might be that these things are owned by the people, they're really just controlled by some asshole (or a collection of assholes) who knows what's best for you.
Interesting, isn't it? Dictatorships call themselves republics, and republics call themselves democracies.
And on a fun tangent, true democracy typically doesn't work because then every person has to vote on every single issue, and while that sounds nice, in practice very few people pay attention to every little law and regulation that gets passed. If you disagree, then go watch c-span for every minute that congress is in session, because it's quite literally a full-time job that wouldn't allow anybody any time to milk their two cows, so the people would starve.