[calibraxis]

When (say) people explaining Parecon are in a fairly precise mood, they say things like "scarce means of production", and make examples that explain that you're not talking about laptops or pencils, if they're sufficiently commonplace. (So under Parecon, no one "owns" the scarce means of production — or you could say it's commonly owned — but you can own your laptop/pencil.)

[Edit: the intuition is capacity to oppress — the state or capitalists controlling means of production, in Soviet communism and capitalism, respectively. This is the motivating factor behind any such definition, given the context.]