Part of the definition of communism includes community (government controlled) ownership of everything. You could not own a house or land and the government could tell you that “your” property must be given to someone else at any time.
This would never work in the USA or really anywhere that values personal freedom. And therein lies the core issue with communism, as it destroys the freedom of individuals in sacrifice to the “greater good” of allegedly equal distribution of resources. In practice, like in China for example, the ranking members of the Party tend to get More Equal distribution of resources like having their own special gardens of organic produce that the common folks never have access to.
IMO it could only work in small communities of like-minded people, like the hippies and others used to do last century. At the nation-state level it inherently leads to authoritarian oppression of freedom.
Part of the definition of communism includes community (government controlled) ownership of everything. You could not own a house or land and the government could tell you that “your” property must be given to someone else at any time.
This would never work in the USA or really anywhere that values personal freedom. And therein lies the core issue with communism, as it destroys the freedom of individuals in sacrifice to the “greater good” of allegedly equal distribution of resources. In practice, like in China for example, the ranking members of the Party tend to get More Equal distribution of resources like having their own special gardens of organic produce that the common folks never have access to.
IMO it could only work in small communities of like-minded people, like the hippies and others used to do last century. At the nation-state level it inherently leads to authoritarian oppression of freedom.
From what research I’ve done since your initial post you don’t appear to be correct concerning personal property by most interpretations.