>>21027991It isn't true that labor is the only source; the resources / means of production are also a source (which absolutely do not necessarily make a profit, but often a loss!)
Now, let's consider the "workers should own the means" part, because that's an important matter, and consider this argument (and please respond to whichever sentence of the argument you may disagree with): to own the means is, essentially, to be able to have the final say over how they should be used. So if I hypothetically own an oven, I and only get to decide how it's used. But let's say that two workers now own it. This means that only they should be able to control the oven and decide how it's used. But what if Worker A decided to make bread, and Worker B decided to make cakes at the same time? Only one action can go forth: but if A wins, then B technically did not own it, because he wasn't able to control it for what he wanted, and viceversa. My conclusion is: common ownership is a logical impossibility, so it is impossible for multiple people or multiple workers to control the means. What will probably happen, then, is that some representitive or institution will own it instead, but even then it will be "privately owned".
I don't want to write a big wall of text, so that's it for now, feel free to point out whatever you disagree with.
