Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production where the collective is most likely the state and the state may or may not be elected representatives.
In common ownership, each individual has an equal access right where the arbitrating body's sole responsibility is to insure individual rights are protected.
I understand and agree with the distinction, but in both cases there seems to be someone in a special role, a state as you said in case of collective ownership in socialism or an "arbiter" in case of common ownership protecting equal rights. The reason I oppose this notion is that I don't believe any one of the individuals in cooperation should be the arbiter or the protector or anything more than any of the other individuals in it. If a violation happens it is the same thing as with a contract violation between two people exchanging some property. They can settle the dispute between themselves or unanimously agree to call a third party arbiter.
So I don't see much benefit in emphasizing "common" or "collective" etc, because speaking in terms of individual-to-individual relationships is much more precise and much less likely to lead to the kind of language which invites one deciding instead of another supposedly for the good of another. Maybe I'm being too extreme, but anarchies have devolved into statism we have today too many times. I think it is warranted to stay extra cautious and vigilant about such issues to avoid the usual traps.
And what if she infringes on your use of the kitchen which is used in common? Typically folks would come to a common agreement prior to anyone acting around the rules of use so as to not infringe. If the rules are arrived at via consensus you have just possibly change in common property (individual equal) to collective (joint) property.
If she infringes then I may have a dispute with her, that's all, since part of my property is invested in exchange for my share of the use of that kitchen, so it essentially comes down to a "not getting what I paid for" kinda thing.
And sure, if the two of us fully agree to a certain set of rules of use that's fine, as long as neither of us is the prime enforcer. That's the key point. The "common" or "collective" ownership in a free market must never involve a single enforcer, unless there is an absolute unanimous and voluntary agreement to set one as such, which you can opt out off at any time. Bottom line is, common or collective regardless, everything is looked at through a lense of an individual (his life, liberty and property) and at all times individual is in 100% control over his circumstance.
I guess I might not be so much in disagreement with you on the idea as much as just in wanting to avoid the use of "common" and "collective" so long as the idea can be described without them. They tend to lead to the legitimization of the idea of "common good" which is a term with such terribly misleading connotations in today's largely socialist world. People are using "common good" to justify doing just the opposite of it's supposed sentiment. Coerce, steal, kill.. anything goes.. so long as it's in the name of "common good". At least that's what the prevalent mentality seems to be. So I guess you can understand why I'm so vary of terms having anything to do with "common" let alone "collective".
Cheers