Previously, you wrote "The bottom line is that socialism never works, and collective ownership of a golf course is just another take on socialism.”
I question the all encompassing statement "collective ownership of a golf course is just another take on socialism.”
I wouldn't have a problem if you'd written "the collective ownership of this golf course is just another take on socialism” or "this collective ownership of a golf course is just another take on socialism.”
A number of people could have invested their capital as partners or shareholders in a golf course, operating it as a business, and it still could have failed but not been "another take on socialism.
Failure of this golf course may be a case where collective ownership is "just another take on socialism" but that does not mean that collective ownership of any and all golf courses, failed or not, is "another take on socialism", as I see implied by your previous statement.
If a golf course, or any other enterprise for that matter, is run without regard for placing costs on users so that a rational demand response can occur that follows actual demand, then you have a recipe for disaster.
Socialism fails because there is no reason to limit costs to the user, hence, no rational demand response occurs.
Sure some socialist enterprises continue for a long time if they are able to extract capital in ever increasing amounts from a captive collective (think Social Security)
But eventually socialism always fails. There can be no other outcome.
I never said a privately run non-socialist enterprise would never fail - that is a necessary part of a capitalist economy.
To the articles point. These courses failed because their purpose was detatched from their ability to sustain operations. They ran out of “other people’s money”.