If the legal structure enforces "social ownership" then a worker must report all his activity to a social body in order to check if any means of production have been used for profit in case it must be "shared" into social ownership.
Each worker should be their own judge of corruption in the social body. So even if corruption doesn't exist and appears to exist only for a worker, that worker should retain the option to reject joining the body.
Forming a "social body" for millions of people is complex and requires lots of protocols with centralized points of power. This is also true for a politically democratic social body.
Where "means of production" is defined as "physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value, such as the facilities, machinery, tools infrastructural capital and natural capital."
Where "social ownership encompasses the various forms of ownership of the means of production for socialist economic systems. It encompasses public ownership, employee ownership, and citizen ownership of equity."
Who is implementing social ownership? What does it mean to socially own something and why didn't you just say machinery? A lot of vague words that are non-descriptive.
"What does it mean to socially own something?" I have a complete sub-tree on the definitions. "Social ownership" is right there. Definitions are exactly from Wikipedia descriptions which I figure is a fair source.
"Who is implementing social ownership?" Anyone. The points I raised are problems of protocols ( standards and processes) that are used to implement co-operation required to form any social body. So "the Who" is irrelevant as long as they're protocols are evident for transparent auditing.
"A lot of vague words that are non-descriptive." Ok if you identify a few of them I will define each one. Each definition will be short with a source link to Wikipedia or similar.
thinkaboutit
