Like the three historical examples you ignored in the post you responded to? C'mon. Why would I waste more time?
> haha, commies are stupid
Yes, this is how you got to the "not even wrong" level of discourse and somehow thought it constituted reasoning. A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for.
Communists weren't stupid. Communism didn't work, but people trying it had a reasonable intuition that it would work because they had a lot of experience with communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales. And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Because they also had a lot of experience with unregulated capitalism fucking them over.
Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. People here get endlessly mad when it happens to handwave away startups or new tech. But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up.
> Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed.
It is not my job to force-feed you an education just because you saw fit to make a poorly considered reply to something I wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, it is your job to go get one. This is an entire field of literature.