One often misunderstood idea within communism is the idea of the abolishment of private property; for advocates of the ideal, its meaning seems self-explanatory, yet for many others it seems authoritarian or simply naive. That is due to a simple misunderstanding; they are not aware of the difference between private property and personal property. They conflate these two terms, and utilize them interchangeably- yet they could not be farther from one another. Furthermore they misinterpret what abolishment means, and assume it to be authoritarian in nature (rather than the collectivization of formerly private property).
Private property refers to the ownership of impersonal items (items in reference to anything which has qualities that can be distinguished). This refers to factories, land, fields, food, and similar items. In its most basic form, impersonal items can be defined as any item serve use to a large quantity of people despite, including those not directly involved in its production. An average individual holds no private property, and instead hordes personal property. Only the bourgeoisie owns private property.
Personal property refers to the ownership of personal items. This refers to tooth brushes, reasonable housing, clothing, and items of that nature. In its most simple definition, personal items can be defined as an item which poses use to one individual, or one group of individuals, particularly those directly involved in its production. Personal property is by far the oldest type of property, with evidence of it dating back tens of thousands of years, including among Neanderthals and Homo Erectus.
If, then, private and personal property are two separate ideas in its entirety, why is it so commonly conflated in the modern day? That can be linked directly to the Enlightenment, when the ideals of ownership began to spread in a more legalized manner. Prior to this period, private and personal property had clear divisions. Private property was near-exclusively owned by nobles or the church, while personal property could be owned by anyone1. This distinction was major; as the division between the two types of properties was what divided a cruel noble from a fair noble, with the overstep of these boundaries being what would trigger rebellion in this age.
After the Enlightenment, however, we began to see the terms of ownership be more clearly defined. The Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke brought forth the idea that all individuals, regardless of class, has the right to own private property2. These thoughts are what brought forth the capitalist notion of private property; allowing individuals to own the means of production, and then was further cemented in the era of Republics. Yet this ‘Lockean’ school of thought wasn’t the only one which was considered in this time.
Other schools of thought, such as the one proposed by Rousseau, believed that private property and property ownership in general should only be permitted should its function not hinder collective growth or work against the will of the people3. This thought, an early form of collectivist ideals, stood in direct opposition to the more ‘liberal’ ideals of Locke and similar thinkers at the time, who believed private ownership was the way through which a Republic could function without devolving into Monarchy.
These two ideals, created in response to the feudal system which held a clear distinction between private and personal property, both (overtime) gave way to the invention of capitalism and communism respectively. Capitalism seeks to combine personal and private property4, while communism seeks to abolish private property and extend collective property5. However, as we have seen increasingly more, capitalism has simply led to the recreation of the feudalist ideals which it sought to break away from.
The noble has become the landlord and bank, the church has become the schools and the corporations. The egalitarian ideal has fallen under capitalism; as when all is private property, all can be monopolized. And when all can be monopolized, feudalism is the inevitable result of it. Yet this issue of terminology is not the only one which often misleads people into believing communism to be unjust, as many still perceive it as authoritarian.
The authoritarian belief of communism comes from historical misapplications, as well as a misunderstanding of the language commonly used. When one hears the abolishment of private property- they hear the consolidation of private property under government control. Which is untrue, and a misleading notion to get behind.
When one speaks of abolishing private property, they speak of collectivization. Collectivization encompasses the process through which private property is made into collective property, meaning at use to the people as a whole- rather than one individual or entity. The collectivization process involves many mechanisms, dependant on what is to be collectivized. May that be a factory, a field, a school, or other functions.
1 “The Great Demarcation”, by Rafe Blaufarb
2 “Two Treatises of Government”, Essay Two by John Locke
3 “The Social Contract”, Book Two by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4 “Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal”, Section One by Ayn Rand
5 “The Communist Manifesto”, by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx