Talk:Social ownership

"Enable productivity ... instead of creating job insecurity and unemployment" is not a NPOV
After some thought it seems to me the line

"Social ownership would enable productivity gains from labor automation to progressively reduce the average length of the working day instead of creating job insecurity and unemployment" does not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV principle.

Either it should be reworded as a claim eg - "Some claim that social ownership would enable productivity gains from labor automation to progressively reduce the average length of the working day instead of creating job insecurity and unemployment" and those who claim that should be cited.

Or the final part of the sentence should be removed because the unclear comparison is problematic (what is it being compared to?, what is the evidence of this?) ie "Social ownership would enable productivity gains from labor automation to progressively reduce the average length of the working day"

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaparamita (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Socialization as a process
The section contains a short unsourced text and one subsection 'Socialization debates' about pre-WW2 German nad Austrian debates. The section does not inform about any real socialization which included nationalization and terror, let say in Cuba.Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reference one : "Ownership means that the object owned is disposed of by the owner in his own interests (broadly conceived). For ownership to be social, therefore, it must satisfy two criteria: the disposition of the object owned must be in the interest of society and the owned object must be disposed of by society." What is 'interest of society' and 'disposed of by society'? Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of private ownership
We need 'Criticism of social ownership' section.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/what-is-left-of-socialism "The idea of socialism as an “alternative society” to capitalism amounts to the idea of totalitarian serfdom; the abolition of the market and overall nationalization cannot yield any other result. "Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-Market Social Ownership?
Marx, Engels, nor Raiffeisen stated such nonsense as this. And the linked citation doesn't support the paragraph.

Social ownership is contrasted with the concept of private ownership and is promoted as a solution to what its proponents see as being inherent issues to private ownership. Market socialists and non-market socialists therefore have slightly different conceptions of social ownership. The former believe that private ownership and private appropriation of property income is the fundamental issue with capitalism, and thus believe that the process of capital accumulation and profit-maximizing enterprise can be retained, with their profits being used to benefit society in the form of a social dividend. By contrast, non-market socialists argue that the major problems with capitalism arise from its contradictory economic laws that make it unsustainable and historically limited. Therefore, social ownership is seen as a component of the establishment of non-market coordination and alternative "socialist laws of motion" that overcome the systemic issues of capital accumulation. shiznaw (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but this removal did not seem to me to be justified. In general the lead follows the body, per MOS:LEAD, so any change to the opening sentence should reflect the rest of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)