I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ow

I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets") I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers. But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)