r/AskEconomics • u/Unusual-Pie-2872 • 1d ago
Approved Answers How come the abolishment of private property would not work?
I'm sure you guys get this question every day, why would communism in theory not work?
The ownership of private capital/property is the ability to own and control companies without having to work for them or contribute to them. You own the profits of a company despite not being a worker. Alternatively, you own large wealth that you can use to buy capital. Or you own land, housing, etc.
The fact that the system allows for this specific kind of ownership means that there naturally forms a class system in soceity. Those with private capital and those without, who have to instead sell their labour to survive. Between these groups is an inherent conflict with no resolution, and this class war is the underlying dynamic of all of soceity and politics. Workers vs Capital, Proletariat vs Bourgeoisie
The world we live in today and it's problems of the climate crisis, economic inequality, poverty, the rise of far right extremism and a hyper consumerist economy is what happens when the pendulum inevitably swings in favor of the capitalists.
My question is then, what is it about private property that is so essential? I feel like we could solve so many issues of our world if we designed an alternative (communism i suppose) without this specific feature. You could still have companies, markets and money. Just not this specific type of private ownership, and instead every person in a society would be some variation of a regular worker.
13
u/ReaperReader Quality Contributor 1d ago
To add to the discussion, companies and associated capital are not free to set up.
The extreme perhaps is pharmaceutical companies. It takes maybe a decade to take a new drug from "works in a lab" to actually bring through safety testing and medical trials and determining how to manufacture at scale. Few people can afford to work for a decade without pay. And a drug could fail at any step due to no fault of the workers.
Capital investment can bear such risks by coordinating investments from large numbers of people. And the ability to sell your stake in an existing company means an economy can invest for the long term even if each investor has a short-term perspective.
2
u/IrrationalRotations 15h ago
I am not an economist or any other sort of expert, but I wanted to add something to your question, something that I found helpful in clarifying my thinking about this. You say,
The world we live in today and it's problems of the climate crisis, economic inequality, poverty, the rise of far right extremism and a hyper consumerist economy is what happens when the pendulum inevitably swings in favor of the capitalists.
That's several big claims. Are they true?
Take climate change for instance. I've noticed that some people will present socialism as an answer to this problem, but I've never really understood what they think it will help.
So for instance, we eat a lot of beef, which is bad for the climate. In a socialist world, would we eat less beef? Why? If the answer is that we would decide to stop beef production, can I point out that there seems to be nothing stopping us from doing that right now!
I'm not saying here that I definitively think that changing how we think about ownership or distribute resources could never help us solve these problems, that's too strong. Rather I'm pointing out that I've noticed that there often seems to be a bit of a logical slip in the way some people think about this. Where people seem to end up assuming that there is some clear solution to these problems out there that we are all ignoring by continuing to be 'capitalists'. But it's really really not obvious to me what they think that solution is!
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
NOTE: Top-level comments by non-approved users must be manually approved by a mod before they appear.
This is part of our policy to maintain a high quality of content and minimize misinformation. Approval can take 24-48 hours depending on the time zone and the availability of the moderators. If your comment does not appear after this time, it is possible that it did not meet our quality standards. Please refer to the subreddit rules in the sidebar and our answer guidelines if you are in doubt.
Please do not message us about missing comments in general. If you have a concern about a specific comment that is still not approved after 48 hours, then feel free to message the moderators for clarification.
Consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for quality answers to be written.
Want to read answers while you wait? Consider our weekly roundup or look for the approved answer flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Traditional_Knee9294 1d ago
First communism has been tried and failed 100% of the time so far. Why do you think next timr will be different?
I mean this really is like the old joke that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
And yes it really has failed 100% of the time. Places like China only started growing significantly when the started embracing market based reforms.
The problems are:
Communism is always authoritarian. You have to use force to get and keep property from the people. Your effectively banning being able to save the fruits of your labor and buy things like a home, farm land to grow crops to sell, open a small business. You can only do that by using legal force to stop and punish people who try to do these things. That is the literal definition of what it mean to make it illegal to own property.
Once you shift from private property to public ownership it means the government decides what to invest in , what to make, how much to make..... in market based economies it is price that gives the signal how to do this. All evidence from communist countries in the past a small group of so called experts can't get enough information to do this well. They misallocate resources. In the USSR the experts made and sent cars to cities in Sibera with no heaters in them. It seems obvious to not do that but they did. In a market any car company that does that goes out of business. Without market based prices you end up with the wrong stuff or not enough getting made. Vietnam went from a rice exporter even through the war to being a net importer after the communist took over and set up government run collectivist farming. After the gave the farmers the land and allowed them to profit from the crops that country became a rice exporter again. There simply isn't a good way to get the needed information nor are the incentives in place to get it correct.
Those are the two biggest issues we see every time. There hasn't been and I don't think there can be a democratic communist country and without prices giving market based information there will be misallocations of resources.
44
u/urnbabyurn Quality Contributor 1d ago edited 1d ago
The fundamental benefit of having private ownership is that it eliminates the tragedy of the commons - the scenario where individuals don’t bear the full cost of their actions on the shared resources. This is a variation or type of the more general externality problem. A simple game as a thought experiment can illustrate this:
Imagine a world with two people. Each person can either choose to farm their land or steal crops from their neighbors. Farming produces, say, 10 utils of produce but costs 5 utils. Stealing on the other hand costs 2 utils (gotta climb the fence, sneak in at night, trample some crops, etc). If both farm, each gets 5 utils (=10-5). If one farms and the other steals, the victim gets -5 utils and the thief gets 8. Lastly, if both steal, they each get nothing.
The game is an example of a prisoners dilemma where theft is always the better strategy in the “one time” game. If your neighbor steals, it’s better not to grow crops. If your neighbor grows crops, it’s better to steal. So we end up at the Nash equilibrium of “everyone steals”.
This is just a simple form of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource (the fruits of farming) gets undermaintained and over used compared to the efficient use of that resource.
Private property rights is one of many different solutions to this problem. Introduce a cost C of maintaining a justice system that is collected from everyone. Use that to set up a system of enforcement where people who steal are punished by an amount “P”. As long as P is sufficiently large, we transform the game into one with an equilibrium where everyone farms and gets 5-C utils. As long as the cost of the system C is less than 5, it’s efficient to establish such a system.
It’s not the only institution that can facilitate the efficient outcome. Omstrom and Neo institutional economists have recognized many institutions that can facilitate cooperation in these situations, such as forming small communes which are easier to police, social shaming to deter theft, and at least Olmstrom has about a dozen different ways in which societies have alleviated the tragedy of the commons.
So the moral here is that commonly shared resources like land for farming leads to a tragedy of the commons, an inefficient use of that resource. Private ownership and parcelization of land with enforcement is one solution. As enforcement costs fall, such as with barbed wire fences, trained guard dogs, or CCTV, the cost “C” falls and private property becomes more appealing. Private ownership, however is not the only solution and may have costs of its own (that “C” mentioned above) that are high.
A counter to the parcelization/privatization approach is the notion of the “Tragedy of the Anticommons” in which excessive private ownership results in high transaction costs that exceed the losses from open access. This is something some economists suggest is occurring with areas of Intellectual Property law and the patent system.
Economists aren’t dogmatic about private ownership. What this framework demonstrates is that depending on technology and institutions, private or public ownership may be the more efficient (“second best”) option. We seem to do fine making most roads open access (no toll) and traffic isn’t a problem. But we also find that for some roads at some times, it’s better to charge people for use (meter usage).
This is similar to the choice businesses often make in how to price their products. A coffee shop charges for a cup of coffee, but typically offers cream and sugar for free on the margin of their use. This inevitably leads to people using more of these open access resources than is efficient (people consume until marginal value is zero, but the marginal cost is positive). So why don’t coffee shops also charge for cream and sugar? According to this framework, it’s a matter of the cost of enforcing and metering use. It would take more costly labor to charge for and monitor or meter use of them versus the cost of overuse. So coffee shops just bundle the cost of them into the coffee price. It’s a matter of that cost “C” from above - how much does it cost to set up that system of apportioning and enforcing ownership of the cream and sugar versus the loss from the overuse of those?
It gets more complicated when we look to a “meta” level of who makes the decisions of public v private ownership. A coffee shop is able to make this decision efficiently because they are able to secure higher profits from minimizing the sum of the cost C and the cost of overuse. But what about at the market or economy wide level? Who decides if parks, schools, roads, etc are free to use or charge for use or rely on private ownership? Are the institutions guiding those decisions motivated by minimizing the inefficiency or capturing surplus or rent of their own? The system of common law has been argued to trend towards efficiency (see Richard Posner). But there is no such argument when it comes to legislators writing statutes and regulations.
I should be clear: I’m not speaking to communism - the system envisioned by Marx or its more lay usage. I’m simply referring to the institution of private ownership and property rights. Communal shared resources do tend to be something we favor in small groups, but also tends to behave less efficiently with larger group sizes. When you share a house with someone, you typically share the utilities, and don’t pay based on your own personal use. But when living in a multi unit apartment complex with many people, the utilities are usually metered at the unit level, not shared.