[Muromec]

You can make another step forward to reduce overheard and put all the shares of those owners into a holding company, vote for the managing person of it and you will pretty much get soviet union. The rest of the soviet union you will have to grow in process of such transformations to deal with marginal ill effects of it.

[diggan]

If you're somehow under the belief that the Soviet Union was an implementation of communism, I'm sad to inform you it wasn't. The Soviet Union was run by the state, not the workers, there was a strict class structure in place, instead of a classless society and it was controlled in a top-down authoritarian manner, not by empowering the workers.

Having a manager as you describe is quite explicitly the opposite than what communism argues for.

[Muromec]

You don't have to tell me, I have this place stamped on my id card in a birth place field. I know the lore and I've seen the ugly stuff too.

It's not the point what soviet union was -- the point is it's one of the practical things you get to when trying to achieve the idea.

[diggan]

> You don't have to tell me

You're kind of the person who went off-topic here. Parent's point was that what's suggested in the article is communism, then you start involving the Soviet Union for some reason, although it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[Muromec]

I believe those things are all connected to both the discussion and the article at hand. Denying existence of a connection between the idea of collective ownership posed in the article with practical examples of attempt at collective ownership and problems that come with it, I think is ideologically motivated.

Understanding pathological cases is especially important and having ideological bias against communism could be as dangerous as the opposite.

Shallow dismissal of this is just not nice too.