사회적 소유권은 공공 소유권, 집단 소유권 또는 공동 소유권 또는[12]자본의 시민 소유권일 수 있습니다.사회주의는 수많은 변형을 가지고 있고, 그래서 그 모든 것을 압축하는 단일 정의는 [13]존재하지 않으며, 비록 사회적 소유권이 그것의 다양한 [5][15][16]형태에 의해 공유되는 공통 요소로서 작용하지만, 그것의 정의는 지속적인 학문적 정밀 조사와 [14]재정의의 대상이 된다.
^Nove, Alec. "Socialism". New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008). A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
^Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53. ISBN978-0-262-18234-8. Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.
^"사회주의 경제체제는 또 무엇을 수반합니까?사회주의를 선호하는 사람들은 일반적으로 사회적 소유권, 사회적 통제 또는 생산 수단의 사회화를 사회주의 경제 체제의 특징적인 긍정적인 특징으로 말한다." N. Scott Arnold.시장사회주의의 철학과 경제학: 비판적 연구옥스퍼드 대학 출판부, 1998, 8페이지
^ abBusky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. ISBN978-0-275-96886-1. Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.
^Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN978-1-4129-5963-6. Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
^Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 7. ISBN978-0-15-512403-5. Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.
^Brus, Wlodzimierz (2015). The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 87. ISBN978-0-415-86647-7. This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.
^Michie, Jonathan (2001). Readers Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 1516. ISBN978-1-57958-091-9. Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.
^(2) (정부, 정치, 외교) 사회주의 경제체제의 확립에 의해 공공복지가 달성되어야 하는 다양한 사회, 정치이론 또는 운동 중 하나.자유사전의 사회주의
^O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
^Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN978-0-19-508827-4. This term is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’ It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system.
^Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (21 December 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN978-0-19-860024-4. Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.
