[js8]

I think this misunderstands what "ownership of means of production" really means in Marxism. The point is NOT that the capitalist owns the factory, which they then rent to workers, who can choose to do whatever they want with it. The ownership of means of production instead refers to full control over the production process, including the social structure of work that makes production possible. Marx's point is that it is this social structure, primarily, that should be collectively owned (that's why all the discussion about alienation).

It's kinda like "owning a home" doesn't imply just owning the walls, but implicitly also a place with privacy.

So in today's SW world, means of production is not a computer, but rather the datacenters of the cloud, proprietary APIs and control over browser standards. And control over habits of the users, who also participate in production, by generating "content". These things cannot be simply replicated by the workers.

[suoduandao3]

So if someone improves the logistic infrastructure involved in getting the products from the workers to the consumers none of the value they generated belongs to them? That actually explains a lot. Even today, places with food insecurity don't have supply but distribution problems, so it's a pretty hard problem to solve.

I wonder how many Marxists study logistics.

[js8]

If you improve the operation of the worker-owned company, you will get rewarded just like any other employee who improves things.

If you want to improve things by doing things on your own, you will own the fruits of your labor. If you need additional employees to improve things, then you will probably have to share with them.

[suoduandao3]

How is owning the fruits of your labour different from capitalism again? Something about how other people's labour is priced?

[thiagoharry]

> How is owning the fruits of your labour different from capitalism again?

Capitalists do not get money because of their labour. They get money because they own capital. An heir who inherits a large company can continue to receive his share of profits and dividends simply by being the "owner", even if he passes on the administrative work to others. If he has not worked, but consumes, he enjoys the fruits of the labor of others. The capitalist concentration of wealth in the hands of a few means that these few enjoy a quantity of fruits of labor that a person could never generate even if they worked for more than 100 years. So, obviously, capitalism has nothing to do with giving each person the fruits of their labor.

[js8]

No, it has nothing to do with price of labor (although in socialism there is no labor market), and everything to do with removing subjugation of others due to ownership of private property.

In socialism, if you want other people to help you build the company, you have to do so on equal terms, by giving them equal stake in ownership. That doesn't mean you don't own fruits of your labor.