What Does 'Social Ownership' Truly Mean?

[Rêve Rouge]

Common ownership is to communism as social ownership is to socialism. We already know common ownership means all property (except personal property) is held 'in common' by everyone in society.

But what about social ownership? As of now, I've come to the conclusion that there are two differing definitions of it.

(1)
According to the libertarian strands of socialism, social ownership refers to the "property that is owned by those who operate and use it". It is synonymous with the idea of a worker's cooperative.

Reference: Ownership. Wikipedia.

(2)
According to the Marxist strands, social ownership takes on a little more complicated definition. Property is owned by the working class as a whole (via a worker's state), but controlled by the workers who work there collectively. Or as the IMT puts it...

"A company owned by the workers, through a cooperative or self-management committee would still be a capitalist company, dependent on profits – whether it is owned by a workers’ cooperative of 12, 250, or 1 man. This is not social ownership. It is the nationalization of industries, under state ownership and workers’ control that guarantees both the social and nationalized character of industry."

Reference: Workers’ Control and Nationalization - Part One. International Marxist Tendency website.

What's your take on the meaning of 'social ownership'?

[syndicat]

According to the libertarian strands of socialism, social ownership refers to the "property that is owned by those who operate and use it". It is synonymous with the idea of a worker's cooperative.



This is not quite right. The majority of libertarian socialists historically have been communists. The anarcho-syndicalist movement did not aim to create a market economy of cooperatives with workers privately owning their means of production. Rather, the aim was that the means of production be owned by all the people. in the '30s the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists advocated social planning for social production.

in the minds of some people "common" ownership might mean ownership by a community or by a worker collective or by the society.

but the libertarian left was opposed to state ownership. equating social ownership with state ownership is the old state socialist fallacy.

but even if we put aside the issue of state versus people as "owner", that doesn't really tell us what "social ownership" means. that's because "ownership" in the existing society is a package of rights. the right to sell the means of production, the right to hire managers to control people who use the means of production, right to own the revenue from sale of commodities made using the means of production, etc. state ownership simply takes over this capitalist definition and thus sets up a managerial regime to control workers just as capitalists do.

so "social ownership" presumably means that the people have some way of ensuring that use of the means of production will be accountable to them at least in regard to those decisions about the use of means of production that do actually affect them, such as what the products are or what the environmental effects will be. doesn't have to mean they set up a managerial regime to control workers.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What "social ownership" means is that you're living under a rock.

The cool kids say "communization" now.

What are you, a boring old Stalinist?

[Rêve Rouge]

This is not quite right. The majority of libertarian socialists historically have been communists. The anarcho-syndicalist movement did not aim to create a market economy of cooperatives with workers privately owning their means of production. Rather, the aim was that the means of production be owned by all the people. in the '30s the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists advocated social planning for social production.

Okay I see where you're coming from on this point. Ya, independent cooperatives do sound nice at first (being able to have full control and ownership of the MoP alongside with with your co-workers). But in the end, it just separates the working class.


so "social ownership" presumably means that the people have some way of ensuring that use of the means of production will be accountable to them at least in regard to those decisions about the use of means of production that do actually affect them, such as what the products are or what the environmental effects will be. doesn't have to mean they set up a managerial regime to control workers.

Sorry this sentence was a little too long for me to comprehend what you're trying to say. But in short, I'm guessing you're saying that workers should be able to run the MoP in a democratic fashion (as opposed to the current 'scientific management' of today). Although there shouldn't have to be an entity from above (say, the state) to manage the workers.


What "social ownership" means is that you're living under a rock.

The cool kids say "communization" now.

What are you, a boring old Stalinist?

Sure.

[syndicat]

I'm guessing you're saying that workers should be able to run the MoP in a democratic fashion (as opposed to the current 'scientific management' of today). Although there shouldn't have to be an entity from above (say, the state) to manage the workers.


yeah. this leaves it as an open question what the means of accountability is of the workers to the larger society.

[ckaihatsu]

(2)
According to the Marxist strands, social ownership takes on a little more complicated definition. Property is owned by the working class as a whole (via a worker's state), but controlled by the workers who work there collectively. Or as the IMT puts it...

"A company owned by the workers, through a cooperative or self-management committee would still be a capitalist company, dependent on profits – whether it is owned by a workers’ cooperative of 12, 250, or 1 man. This is not social ownership. It is the nationalization of industries, under state ownership and workers’ control that guarantees both the social and nationalized character of industry."

Reference: Workers’ Control and Nationalization - Part One. International Marxist Tendency website.

What's your take on the meaning of 'social ownership'?


The reason why the 'social ownership' step leaves in capitalism / the profit mechanism is because, *functionally* there's not that much wrong with the capitalist mechanism *itself* -- taken in a vacuum, under a microscope, on a library shelf, etc. (That's why libertarian types can come off looking so "golden" and "pure" when talking about ownership, work, earnings, ambition, and profits at the individualistic small-scale -- in *theory* it rocks, but in the real world it gets *very* messy....)

So *politically* the idea -- from the IMT -- is to first revolutionize the *ownership* aspect solely, so that the mechanism isn't being controlled by the profit bribe-takers. It's almost like the liberal ideal itself -- that capitalism should be accountable to the larger public interest.

We know, however, that, under nationalization, it's the *workers* *only* who need to be the ones in control of the revolution, the nationalization process, the shop floor, and the state ownership. This would put the transition on a solid trajectory towards full communal control once all lingering bourgeois claims to ownership and control have been soundly defeated.








I'm guessing you're saying that workers should be able to run the MoP in a democratic fashion (as opposed to the current 'scientific management' of today). Although there shouldn't have to be an entity from above (say, the state) to manage the workers.





yeah. this leaves it as an open question what the means of accountability is of the workers to the larger society.





but even if we put aside the issue of state versus people as "owner", that doesn't really tell us what "social ownership" means. that's because "ownership" in the existing society is a package of rights. the right to sell the means of production, the right to hire managers to control people who use the means of production, right to own the revenue from sale of commodities made using the means of production, etc. state ownership simply takes over this capitalist definition and thus sets up a managerial regime to control workers just as capitalists do.

so "social ownership" presumably means that the people have some way of ensuring that use of the means of production will be accountable to them at least in regard to those decisions about the use of means of production that do actually affect them, such as what the products are or what the environmental effects will be. doesn't have to mean they set up a managerial regime to control workers.


All of the basic, organic economic premises of an economy could be retained, but the *purpose* of its operation would be revolutionized so that the machinery could be diverted away from the no-one-at-the-wheel, irrational mode of capital accumulation that it's been stuck in ever since it began.





Ya, independent cooperatives do sound nice at first (being able to have full control and ownership of the MoP alongside with with your co-workers). But in the end, it just separates the working class.


Instead of shattering the whole thing and trying to pick up the pieces at local levels the point is to keep the overall *machinery* intact and just repurpose it according to the will of the mass working class. It's a necessary step -- not Stalinist 'stage' -- so as to have an orderly transition and to keep in line with people's current practices, understandings, and expectations as to what an economy is *continuously* supposed to be able to do.