“Common ownership” as in the workers collectively own the means of production. You, individually, don’t get to own it, but a union of workers, a local collective, or the state might own it and decisions would be made, ostensibly, by the workers who make up those entities.
There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would “own” it but the workers would still direct it.
In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it’s not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.
“Common ownership” as in the workers collectively own the means of production. You, individually, don’t get to own it, but a union of workers, a local collective, or the state might own it and decisions would be made, ostensibly, by the workers who make up those entities.
In other words… the workers don’t own squat.
There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would “own” it but the workers would still direct it.
In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it’s not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.
The word ‘union’ kind of brings more ring to the “workers’ ownership” in that case. ‘State’ sounds spooky.
Your example is unheard to me tho. Kinda interesting how it works out.
Depends to what extent the state can be said to truly represent the workers.