So then, not all collective ownership is “another take on socialism”, and a successful corporately run golf course would not be “just another take on socialism” even though collectively owned?
“So then, not all collective ownership is “another take on socialism”, and a successful corporately run golf course would not be “just another take on socialism” even though collectively owned?”
The article definitely describes “another take on socialism” with these failing golf courses owned collectively by HOAs.
Do you disagree? If so, why? What would have made them successful?