WIP response to socialism

Response to this definition of socialism:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/what-socialism

"Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."
Totally agree with this and from this we know right away that any implementation of socialism will be an utter disaster. The tradegy of the commons proves that resources held in common ownership will be wasted:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

"But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example."
Even socialists recognize common ownership is impractical at some level. So they make an exception for "personal consumption". Of course without defining what that is. So the leadership of socialist countries tend to be a little more equal than others. Causing people like Castro and Chavez to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I'm sure only for "personal consumption".

"People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership."
Yes it does, directly. You're just being inconsistent because when it comes to your personal items you have the intellectual capability to recognize it would be horrible to not personally own those items. But since you're envious of what other people own and want an excuse to steal it, you look for an excuse to define that property as common.

"In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used."
This can sometimes work. Although it's really hard to determine  what the population actually wants. So what happens in practice is that a strong man takes control. One example of where this worked peacefully is the Isreali kibbutz. These where fanatical socialists, mostly from the soviet union who fled from there but still loved socialism. Only even if this system works on a democratic level, it still destroys whatever resources are in the system and prevents the creation of any new resources. But looking at history, when a strong man does take control, chances are he'll commit genocide.

"It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions."
Except the single strong man leader has been able to take control of almost all resources almost every time. So this delusion is entirely based on wishful thinking and in conflict with reality.

"Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.