Political Pistachio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Among the fundamental aspects of communist ideology is a distinction between what communists consider “personal property” versus “private property.”  The communist critique of private property targets the means of production, and any assets that generate wealth or are symbols of wealth.  According to Marxist theory, when these means of production, means of wealth generation, or signs of wealth are privately owned they create a class system where owners (bourgeoisie) profit from the labor of workers (proletariat).  Communism teaches that private property ownership allows the wealthy to create value through the labor of workers while the laborers only receive a portion of that value in wages.  This, according to Marx, alienates workers from their labor dividing them from their humanity.  Thus, the “inequality” gap widens, leading to class divisions and social conflict.  Karl Marx viewed private property as a historical development that served a purpose would eventually be superseded by collective ownership as the communist society advances.

As with any system, the envelope is pushed and the dynamics become more extreme.  A friend of mine visited Moscow in 1972 and observed no curtains on any windows of apartments, or other living spaces.  When he asked about it, he was told that the rule was necessary so that nobody could hide any illegal excess.

Soviet Russia argued that any visible displays of any wealth must be discouraged because they represented the capitalist values that communism sought to replace.  The absence of curtains also symbolized a rejection of privacy in favor of communal transparency – remember, in socialist systems, the community’s interests outweigh individual desires or concerns.  In the end, the “no curtains” policy made it difficult for individuals to accumulate goods beyond what was considered appropriate for everyone. 

It is worth noting that party elites enjoyed privileges and possessions unavailable to ordinary citizens.  While the communist vision of property relations aims to create a society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, eliminating class divisions and allowing for equitable distribution of goods and services based on need rather than purchasing power, that same dynamic never applies to those in charge. 

Communism’s anti-possession principles are fundamentally flawed for several key reasons. 

The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of our Natural Rights, and the fact that they are among our private and personal possessions.  The Declaration of Independence establishes that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The right to own property is deeply intertwined with these natural rights.  When individuals cannot possess the fruits of their labors, their liberty is compromised and their ability to pursue happiness is severely constrained. 

If one may not possess property, not only is their “pursuit of happiness” obstructed, but then that means they can’t own their own God-given Rights, either.  If one does not own one’s own rights, that means they are possessed by government, defined by government, and provided by government as government determines.   In short, while property rights begins with the ownership of physical property and is considered a natural right, if government may confiscate and possess tangible property, then government will ultimately take possession of all property, including one’s personal Blessings of Liberty.

Communist anti-property principles have led to severe historical consequences every time these principles have been applied.  Every nation that has implemented anti-property principles has experienced economic disaster.  The Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc countries, China (though the impact has been reduced since its market reforms that infused limited capitalistic principles into its system), Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela have all suffered from massive shortages, declining productivity, and technological stagnation (lack of innovation) once private property was abolished.  As the Founding Fathers realized, the ownership of private property is a key foundational necessity for a system to flourish and become prosperous.

Ultimately, the elimination of private property leads to massive state power.  When the state controls all means of production, distribution, and ownership of property it gains total control over the lives of its citizens.  My friend’s observation of mo curtains in Moscow illustrates this.  Without property rights, there is no meaningful barrier between the individual and state power.

The consequences of it all includes the deaths of over 100 million people through starvation, purges, labor camps, and direct execution.  The Holodomor in Ukraine (man-made famine created by Stalin), the Great Leap Forward in China (1958-1962 Mao led rapid transformation of China from an agrarian society to industrialization that resulted in catastrophic economic mismanagement and the Great Chinese Famine), and the Killing Fields in Cambodia all were direct consequences of implementing these anti-property principles.  While communists claim they aim to protect the environment, communist states have the worst environmental records in human history. 

Without property rights, the incentive to innovate and improve disappears.  Communist countries historically lag behind capitalist countries in technological advancement, scientific discovery, and quality of life improvements.  Communist thinking misunderstands human nature, and are convinced that the “goodness” of people can support their ideology, and that human nature can be reshaped by ideology.  People are motivated by self-interest, family concern, following a moral path as laid out by their Creator, and a desire to leave a better world for their children.  All of these things are directly or indirectly related to and expressed through acquiring and protecting property.  When these natural motivations are suppressed, society doesn’t become more egalitarian; society becomes more brutal, as history has repeatedly demonstrated.

The American constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to secure property rights precisely because the Founding Fathers understood that ownership creates a natural check on government power and provides the foundation for a free and prosperous society.

This is a large part of why the policies being advanced by Democratic Socialist candidates are so concerning.  And it isn’t only festering in New York City around Zohran Mamdani.  Los Angeles County is working to seize private property on the West Coast.  These policies and socialist concepts are a dangerous departure from constitutional principles.  We are witnessing a modern iteration of the same flawed ideology that has produced catastrophic consequences throughout history. 

The L.A. County proposal for a “Community Opportunity to Purchase Act” is particularly alarming because it represents a sophisticated form of property seizure that circumvents constitutional protections.  The program effectively seeks to place a lien on private property by granting “community groups” (which are often politically allied with the officials implementing these policies) the right of first refusal on property sales.  This creates a heads-they-win, tails-you-lose scenario where property owners either pay off these groups to allow a sale or face their property devalued and eventually seized.  It violates the Takings Clause (Imminent Domain) of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (and similar clause in the state constitution) which requires that private property may only be taken for public use if accompanied by “just compensation.”  By creating regulatory obstacles that effectively devalue property, the government is engaging in “regulatory taking” without compensation.

The move in Los Angeles County also undermines the Contract Clause of the Constitution by interfering with private parties’ ability to freely enter into contracts for the sale of the property, while also representing an unequal application of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment that favors politically connected groups over ordinary citizens.

The recent deadly earthquakes in Venezuela also revealed a stark reality regarding the flaws of anti-property principles of communist systems.  Buildings constructed under Hugo Chavez’s “Grand Housing Mission” were “little more than facades held together by Styrofoam and thin concrete shells.”  When the earthquakes struck, these shoddy constructions collapsed, killing over 1,400 people with tens of thousands still missing.  This disaster wasn’t merely an accident.  It was the predictable result of a system that values political loyalty over competence, central planning over expertise, and propaganda over safety.  The Venezuelan government rushed construction projects to meet political quotas while ignoring seismic codes and basic engineering standards.  This is what happens when the state eliminates private enterprise, which provides accountability through market mechanisms and property rights. 

What we are seeing in America is the early stage of the same ideological path that led to the collapse of every communist society.  These policies are championed as fair, equitable, and reasonable policies for helping the poor and the homeless, but ultimately leads to the erosion of property rights, a concentration of power, the degradation of quality and safety, the creation of a permanent underclass dependent upon government, and the eventual collapse of the economic system.

The Founding Fathers understood that property rights are not merely about protecting wealth.  They are about securing liberty.  When the state is able to seize property, it can control your behavior.  When the state controls the means of production, it controls your life.  This is why the Constitution contains explicit language regarding property rights and why any attempt to undermine these principles should be viewed as an attack on the very foundations of our republic.  Even if used in the name of the “common good,” history demonstrates that whether it’s through outright seizure, or through regulatory schemes that effectively transfers property to political allies, the result is the same: the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the erosion of freedom for everyone else.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary