[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.