No one is talking about centralization. The subject is big businesses, that’s not the same.

Its the same thing lol. Stop being a pedant

I doubt the workers of firms would allow their firm to be nationalized. What?

You probably think socialism is what an entity external to the workers does and not what workers build themselves. In historical practice, the nationalization of firms was done against the will of the working class, who usually formed spontaneous worker councils. Nationalization=socialism is a Kautskyist revisionist formula. If you talk to actual working class people, no one has any desire to see their workplaces nationalized, regardless of whether you think thats the "correct" way to do socialism.

You can look at many, many examples of nationalised firms, the control workers have over them (and I don’t mean the indirect control via elections etc) is much greater than the control a private employee has, which is why people much prefer to work in the public sector in such countries.

Pure radlib nonsense. The workers want full control of their workplace. The fact that public sector workers have more control has more to do with the fact that public sector companies arent as laser focused on profitability as other companies, so they dont come down on unionization hard like other companies. Public sector companies arent benevolent institutions, their laxity is just a side-effect. They exploit workers just the same as any other company. Once again, workers don't want their companies nationalized, they want control over their workplace. Literally just talk to workers anywhere.

Marx did argue for nationalisation (or at least what people call nationalisation today.

The state under a DotP is nothing like the state as it exists today. Marx made it very clear after the Paris commune that the existing instruments of the state must be fully destroyed and replaced with worker control. Nationalization under a DotP is nothing like state-ownership as it exists today.

It is unclear what you think workers controlling capital means practically. Are you just gonna make everything into a market socialist coop?

It is decided by the working class how they will associate themselves.

In practice, a great deal of centralised coordination will be needed to even take a crack at abolishing the commodity form, and that’s the whole point of the state. It is one thing learning from mistakes of the past and another thing just eschewing every past attempt to ho back to 0 basically.

What exactly was done in the past that we can learn from? The USSR was a social democracy. Cuba and NK follow the same model of "capitalism but the state owns everything and prices dont reflect labor content". All these countries, and all "AESC" today follow the same nonsense idea of "socialism=govt ownership". Leftists make the meme of "socialism is when the govt does stuff" and then proceed to unironically believe that as the path to socialism.

How exactly the working class will associate with themselves, what organizations will form, will be determined by themselves. Abolishing commodity production requires large-scale cooperation, it does not follow that the specific form of state-ownership is required for it.

And yet here you are talking about the form of enterprises under socialism. When you repeat left on talking points, try to make them coherent and relevant to the conversation.

Enterprises centralize for reasons of economy of scale. Socialism doesnt change this. I don't know why this is a complex or controversial idea for you.