Would I be correct to observe that social ownership seem to work

>>3156618

Because it doesn't matter if you share with your kin, since your personal survival is not what matters but rather the survival of your kingroup does. But when you try to share with strangers, you run in to the problem of free riders and psychopaths, who will happily take but won't reciprocate, resulting in you reducing the prospects of your kingroup surviving while directly aiding rival kingroups survival.

I would arge that communal sharing with kin and a tribe can go to the extreme, Africa places ridiculous pressure on anyone that gets ahead to share with the community (relatives etc). The social pressure and expectations are huge so any wealth is often hidden from tribal eldars who van take their cut at any timw.

>>3156618
>COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THAT IS SELFCONTRADICTORY; EITHER, OWNERSHIP BELONGS TO THE STATE, OR TO A COMMUNE; BOTH ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

>>3156618
Because they are constantly overseeing each other? You know if your wife isn't sucking dick right and can correct her behavior.

It doesn't.

Sharing/Generosity does not equal socialism/communism.

If your parents give you money or you share things with your brother, that's generosity. If you give it to a stranger, that's charity.

If you force them to give you money, that's communism.

>>3156659
You don't understand what social ownership means.

Giving something to someone else still imply the presence of private property. Social ownership implies no one person owns it. You can't give someone something you didn't own in the first place.