The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

Right-wingers have convinced their flock that anything the government does that isn't pay-as-you-go is "socialism".

Was the Darma Initiative socialist?

Define "collectively own".

Ownership generally means two things:

1. The owner gets to make decisions about the thing being owned.
2. The fruits of the thing are directed to the benefit of the owner.

(I'm intentionally omitting the third implication of getting a share when the thing is being sold, because that requires the concept of selling a means of production which brings us deep into the realms of capitalism)

These things are pretty much clear-cut when it comes to individual ownership, but what do they mean in the context of collective ownership?

• Decision Making
  • Does every decision have to unanimously supported by all the workers?
  • Or is it enough for all the workers to get a vote in every single decision regarding the thing? Note that in this case there has to be a process where decisions are brought to vote, and whoever controls that process has the real power, but let's not get into that.
  • Or is it enough for all the workers to elect someone to make these decisions every X years?
  • Or maybe it is enough for that someone makes all the decisions as long as they insist really hard that they are representing the workers?
• Fruit Enjoyment
  • Does the product of said means of production have to be distributed directly among all the workers who own it?
  • Or is it enough to sell the product (a process which require some concepts from capitalism, but let's not go there) for some commodity and split that commodity among all the workers?
  • Or maybe it's enough for the product can be put toward projects that are supposed to benefit all the workers?

So are we pinning this post or what?

No True Scotsman