I can see it making sense if using a strict definition of socialism in the sense of "placing the instruments of the means-of-production directly into the hands of the workers who use them to create". and thinking state ownership doesn't imply the negation of the capitalist mode of production, but a replacement of capitalists with corrupt bureaucrats. Similar to reject the argument tat "America is (little-d) democratically run, because even though the people don't pick legislation themselves (aside from refferendumbs) they get to pick a guy who will pick it from them.

I have no idea if some council communists or someone might've gone and done this, and I think some Zapitasta controlled areas of Chiapas do this, but they are practically anarchist anyway to begin with a apriori