Is private ownership a natural propensity?

Communists and their likes insist that it is not. They claim that there was no private property in the earliest societies where the “first communism” prevailed. All things, they say, were public property shared by all people who were guided by a spirit of affection co-operation and brotherhood. They sadly regret that such “an angelic era” did not last because the discovery of agriculture involved disputes over the cultivated land and the means of production. This inevitably led to war. The Communists allege that humanity can put an end to this dreadful evil only by returning more to “the first Communism” where no one had a property or one’s own and all production was equally shared by all people. They believe that this is the only way to restore peace, affection and harmony to the world.

 On the other hand, psychologists and sociologists do not agree upon a clear distinction between natural and acquired human emotions, concepts and manners. Likewise they differ regarding private ownership. Some psychologists and sociologists maintain that private ownership is a natural propensity born with man regardless of the conditions of his environment. Others believe that it is acquired through man’s environment. A child, they say, refuses to part with any of his toys either because they are too few or because he fears that another child may take them. When there is just one toy for ten children, quarrel is sure to break out, but, they say, where there are ten toys for ten children everyone will have a toy of his own and there will be no conflict. Our answer to the arguments put forward by communists and other psychologists and sociologists is as follows:-

1. No scientist has been able to prove beyond all doubt that private ownership is not the outcome of a natural instinct. All that the leftists could say in this regard is that there is no conclusive evidence available that it is the outcome of a natural instinct. But that is another question.

2.The example-about children and their toys-which the communists give in support of their stand cannot lead to the conclusions they aim at. That quarrels do not break out when ten children are given ten toys does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. It means that the desire for ownership may, in healthy cases, be satisfied by absolute equality. The aforesaid example does not rule out the existence of such desire but it may help to define its nature. Besides, no one can deny that many children would not hesitate to usurp the toys of their friends unless they are prevented from doing so for reasons beyond their control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA8vYBCMl1k

3. As to “the angelic era” which the communists suppose to have accompanied the earliest societies, it may be said that there is no real evidence that such an era did really exist. Even if there had been such an era, there could have been no means of production at the time. How could disputes arise over something that did not exist? At that time people got their food easily and directly from trees. When they went hunting they had to go in groups for fear of wild animals. It was impossible to store slain animals for they would soon go bad. So they had to be eaten up as soon as possible. The absence of conflict in that case does not rule out the existence of a natural desire for ownership. As a matter of fact, absence of conflict is due to absence of anything worth the strife. This is why the discovery of agriculture brought about conflict. The said discovery stimulated a hitherto dormant tendency which till then lacked the incentive for action.

4. No one could firmly deny that at such an early era a conflict could have existed among a number of men for the possession of a particular woman. In spite of the existence of sexual communism in that era no one can say for sure that it was prevalent throughout society or that its existence prevented men from fighting each other for possessing a woman whom they considered very attractive. This leads to an important conclusion: where all things are equal and similar the possibility of a conflict may be ruled out. But as long as things are different, conflict and struggle are bound to break out even in the imaginary “angelic society” upon which communists build their future prospects.

5. Finally, no one could rule out the fact that some men who lived in that early era desired to achieve personal distinction either by showing their bravery and physical strength or by any other means. Some primitive tribes-examples of the so-called “first communist society“-do still refuse to give their daughters in marriage except to those men who would endure a hundred lashes without showing any signs of weariness or pain. There is no doubt that the only reason that invites young men to set out for such a painful ordeal is their desire to achieve personal distinction.

If it is true that all things follow a state of absolute equality, we must then search for a reason that leads some people to assert that they are not equal to but even better than others. This leads us to the conclusion that if private ownership is not the outcome of a natural tendency it must be closely connected with another natural tendency namely the desire to achieve personal distinction present in man from time immemorial. The communists allege that private ownership has been coupled throughout the ages with injustice and, therefore, if humanity wants to maintain peace and rid itself of bitter conflicts it must abolish private ownership.