The gold standard are urainum mines. Lead are for those with good behavior.

This particular thing was actually tried by the Soviets. Farms were considered excesses of kulaks. Kolhos (collective "farm") was the replacement.

And yes, it was possible to say "my kolhoz" like people say "my city", good point. Even if "our kolhoz" was a lot more accepted, since it emphasizes how collective it is.
It is also possible to feel personal affinity to collectively owned space.

The difference between usually implied individual "my farm" and collective "my farm" is of course in the governance.

Collective ownership may end up being governed by ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible "people representatives". E.g. deciding that genetics is a capitalist plot, and planting corn everywhere is the solution to all problems (both cases actually happened on a massive scale).

The result is not very different from what ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible large capitalist landowners do.

Both systems disenfranchise the disadvantaged ones, since decisions can practically never be completely unanimous.
So it's good if you agree with the party line, but if not - violent suppression comes, no teaching on the farm.
That's where the feeling of "my farm" breaks down. On a private farm you have a lot more options before you are lost.

I get the challenges with governance in capitalism-turining-feodalism which we have now in many cases.
But I do not get it why people imagine that full collective ownership is a good and sustainable alternative.

Maybe it's even more like "I got an outlook message" instead of "I got an email". Since email is an analog of ActivityPub. Just that people are not used yet to the fact that social media can be interoperable like email, so "saw on lemmy" carries different connotations. It should not, however.

Anecdotically, I have an old frendlica account too, from times of diaspora, and it's now very lively, so I saw this post on frendlica too.

As someone who grew up with soviet animation I'd say it was pretty high quality but also extremely limited in quantity and diversity. Also it was not infrequently associted with dissidents.

I would even say it is one of the key components of everything we consider life. On the other hand, other components include selflesness, compassion and sacrifice. Denying and of these features leads to disfunctional systems

Capitalism builds on competetion but favors behavior which eliminates competitors. This inner tension of capitalism makes it easily degrade into an authoritharian system. But it does not make it the same as one. Regulation is needed to maintain fair competetion which sounds paradoxical but is also a tension in the capitalism as such.

Democracies struggle with capitalism but they struggle much more with planned state. Struggle is in the nature of free agents of democracy, so it does not have to suggest incompatibility.

As others said, science also needs governance, direction. Scientists have internal motivation and sense of what to do, but they often disagree and choices for resource allocation need to be made. Exteme competetiveness in some scientific institutions can cause bad culture (like favoring hype over achievement) but authoritharian systems also often breed bad science (like what soviets disregarded quantum physics at first). Speaking as a scientist myself.

Paradoxically regulation is needed to ensure free and fair competetion in science (and in other things)

Probably, but they could also just be evil. Some people actually want things which are not compatible with what many would consider fair.

There is a lot of space for discussion on the desired reach of free market and regulation, and it is actually happening in politics. Too bad in public space it sometimes looks like the only options are extreme capitalism or anticapitalism.

By the way, highly regulated authoritarian states have even more success to regulate breathing than capitalism, so it is weird to focus the hate on one but not the other.

On the other hand there is something to be said about those who feel like they are left out by the system which does not self correct in their favor. Hearing their voices, which might justifiably sound extreme, is important.

Like others said, struggle is in human nature. But it is possible to shift it to other domains: art, science, exploration. To prevent this stuggle spill back into physical violence, there should be broad consensus on basic rules, effectively enforced.

So I'd say, build this consensus, which will probably need to rely on abundant renewable enengy, some form of UBI, equality, and stronger international institutions, but will not spotaneously evolve towards unsupportable preferences of some groups.

This is very interesting and not discussed enough, thanks for sharing. Could you refer to some materials, where did you learn it?