Talk:Collective ownership

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Overly restrictive definition

The current (Sep 2029) lead defines collective ownership in terms of ownership of, specifically, the means of production. That is overly specific. One can, of course, have collective ownership of the means of production, but the term can be applied to any form of property. One could, for example, have collective ownership of the works of Mozart, or of the Moon. That the definition needs fixed can be seen in the commonly used expression, “collective ownership of the means of production”. Using the current definition, that expression would expand to “ownership of the means of production of the means of production”, which of course is silly. 70.123.153.76 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase Collective ownership is used in the way described in the lede, and it is worth distinguishing this from Common ownership (which need not involve means of production); though the sematics are the similar, the use of these phrases is different. There is also the related State ownership. Klbrain (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“ from common ownership and the commons, which implies open-access, the holding of assets in common, and the negation of ownership as such.”

Does it make sense to say that common ownership is the negation of ownership? Maybe this is Hegel speaking from the grave? Anyhow, if that statement is intended to make sense, someone should parse it out into something I can understand. My current understanding is that common ownership is ownership, not the negation of ownership. If something else is going on, it needs an explanation. 98.155.206.12 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]