What's Wrong With Collective Ownership?

Collective ownership vs private ownership is a debate-able topic in economics. The video highlights some of the things wrong with collective ownership and how it can't sustain in large groups and how fundamentally it goes against the human nature.
’What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others.’
Why Can't We Print More Money To Pay Off Debt?: • Why Can't Government P...
Student Debt Crisis: • Student Debt Crisis: S...
Economics of Breaking Bad: • 18 Business Lessons Fr...
Economy of Countries: • Economy of Countries
Some of the issues with collective ownership are: there is a big disconnect between the utilization and obligations, it suppresses individual freedom as you are dependent on other people to use a resource, its capability to drift towards authoritarianism as people who preach collective ownership have a high tendency to enforce their so-called “good idea” as something mandatory.
The video also discusses 'the tragedy of the commons', that describes a scenario where individuals have free collective access to a resource without any social structure or governing rules, they act in their self-interest for a while but eventually end up depleting a resource.
“For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill.”
Please share your thoughts by writing in the comment section below.
#communism #capitalism #socialism
Connect with us:
EconomicRaven.com
economicraven
economic_raven
economicraven
anchor.fm/economicraven

[@comrade2854]

K

[@pavanpsharma]

+ 1

[@jeevacation]

I love your videos man, Im sad that you're gone. I know that it's a little hard to see through the haters and see us but we're here giving you our support.

[@EconomicRaven]

Thank you 🙏

[@obviousgorilla124]

Good to see you're back, please do more videos like this!

[@EconomicRaven]

Thank you 🙏

[@CUTECATSTUDIOS]

Love the video definitely shows the other side of things. nice to see an upload again will you be uploding more actively again?

[@EconomicRaven]

Hopefully 👀😀

[@abdirahmaanh]

Well put together premise. However something does not sit well with me. You assume that in systems with collective ownership people will show the worst of their character, like taking without giving back and that people. Then in your counter arguments you argue for the best of people namely I will be responsible for my own things and take good care of them individually. You are unfortuantly neglecting the real life cases where people through individual ownership try to place as many rights with in their own boundaries of ownership and placing the responsibility within the commons. A good example would be sigarets and sugar. I an individual organisation will design my products in such a way that they are as addictive as possible so addicts will keep coming back to me. The health and envermentol strains my products causes will be placed on the collective. The second thing you are forgetting is that many of the fortunes devolped by the most "succesfull" individual owners are gained through processes that heavily depend on the common such as the rights to exploitation natuaral resources gained by militairy force and corruption (oil & gas) or copying patents devolleped using the funds of the collective (medicine and tech). Individual ownership would work if everyone live in a strict box. Where all of the benefits and waste created would be confined to that box. However this perfect box does not exist. So we need rights (protecting people from exploitation and givjng them their fair stake in the collectivly gained values) and responsibilities (those who disproportianly hurt others should be restricted or monitored closely).

[@ahmadal-hafez7779]

The video in general is poorly researched and it shows his biases, completely ignoring what collective ownership actually stands for and how to establish it.

[@karsevak.hanuman]

Happy to see you back

[@apartofthewhole6639]

There's also ways that owning a car limits freedom, by trapping you economically within the market of the car.

[@apartofthewhole6639]

@Angry Combat Wombat True...but what's that got to do with anything? Doesn't our society highly favor the car? Can you imagine living in suburban America without a driver's license? What was your point in even commenting what you did? It's so boring lol

[@apartofthewhole6639]

@@benchoflemons398 can you elaborate on your "no" answer. I think it's pretty obvious that the car is the favored form of transportation in America...

[@apartofthewhole6639]

@@benchoflemons398 I can't afford to move anywhere lol I've got like $500 saved up. I'm working paycheck to paycheck and I don't have debt. And I'm a lucky American. Have you been to America? It is not a very mobile place, unless you have a car...

[@sumitcrana3192]

You are back with a bang!

[@elmunecohumano4609]

Great video, thanks a lot! As someone born in Argentina, I've seen my country decline from being rich (world's highest GDP per capita in 1895 and top ten until 1950) to being poor, with nearly half the population living in poverty. Most of this decline can be explained by the spread of the idea that everyone has plenty of rights (right to get a house, right to plenty of paid holidays, right not to be fired from your job, right to free higher education, right to healthcare, right to everything) but nobody ever talks about individual responsibilities. As a result, more than half the population now gets paychecks from the government while less than 20% works in the private sector (and almost half of those are in the black economy, not paying taxes). Only 12% of the population works in the registered private sector, and they have to pay for everyone else's rights. The situation is completely untenable. BTW, you should do a video about the economy of Argentina. Thanks again.

[@EconomicRaven]

The Raven will fly Argentina soon! Thank you 🙏

[@claudioramirez8700]

Mexico’s on its way to becoming North Argentina

[@TheoTungsten]

The plymouth common is a good example of this bot working. Also the watch factory Lip. Even after receiving millions from the government, the factory couldn't compete with the privately owned Japanese factories.

[@tahidulislam8419]

Please make a video about Bangladesh's Economy.

[@EconomicRaven]

the Raven will fly over Bangladesh soon!

[@tahidulislam8419]

@@EconomicRaven Thank you so much Raven. Eagerly waiting for your Bangladesh episode. I have learnt so much watching your videos. 💙

[@SunRabbit]

Great video and I largely agree. However, I would point out that even when you have voluntary collectivisation you'll have abuses because the collective becomes just as greedy as any other owner. Take the case of ChEZ. It's 70% state owned and is the Czech Republic's most successful company. Yet, we pay the highest cost of electricity worldwide because the retail price is NINE TIMES the COP. NINE!

[@vulpix3783]

HE IS BACK!

[@EconomicRaven]

🙏

[@cajunboy67]

"Forcing anyone to be a part of the collective is not only wrong but inherently evil" -- Um, aren't we all members of society where we had little say regarding the rules of that society? Where what constitutes "fairness" is generally determined by the folks with wealth and power, and the rest of us just have to accept it?

[@faidonc]

Fairness isn't constituted by "folks with wealth and power". Fairness is freedom, the ability to choose, and to respect your fellow citizens in regards to their opinions and beliefs. Fairness is constituted by our laws, and they are constituted by democracy and the people. It is true that in the past we had little say regarding the rules/laws of our nations (although social norms were always developed by the lower classes) /(remember that at the time laws and social norms were very different) , but in the last 200 years power has shifted in most western countries, from the "elite" to the people. Now i know youre probably gonna argue "B-B-B-B-BUT THE PEOPLE ARE INFLUENCED BY THE ELITE OF COURSE AND FOLLOWING THEIR AGENDA!1!11!!!11!". And that might be true, but in far less of an extend than you perceive it. If the elites had/have/and would have control, all of the political transitions from feudalism to democracy would never have happened. We would still be living under kings, quite literally. Fairness thereby is constituted by the social norms through which we interact with eachother, and this sort of fairness has made its way up to laws and constitutions, through democracy. Fairness is respecting a persons right to choose. It is our ability to choose, whatever we think is best, that makes us human. Trying to take that freedom away from anyone is just authoratarian and fascist. There is no way possible you can argue that restricting a person's freedom is in their best interest, at least you can't do it and then pretend you're not a little fascist. You are not the genius and the people aren't just plebians, waiting on you for their salvation and enlightenment.

[@MA-go7ee]

Nothing, if it is a voluntary and people can join and exit.

[@fleurdepapaye9635]

Seems like, the flaw can be reduced significantly with set of rules. Rules to limit the right to exploit, rules to distribute fairly the responsibility, rules to allow the sustainable utilization, rules to set up democratic choices, rules to agree and to disagree.

[@elmunecohumano4609]

That's what collectivists always do, create more and more rules, until everything is paralyzed by bureaucracy. But they never learn, and think that somehow they will make it work when nobody else could.

[@B.Ingold]

The study you refered with the "tragedy of the commons" isnt about collective ownership but rather about a class of goods.. the commongood. It a good which the people cant be excluded from using but there is still rivalry in usage i.e. it can be overused. example: clean air/water, uncongested roads

[@shivudaykala1511]

Please do a video on the indian economy and its future

[@EconomicRaven]

the Raven will fly over India soon!

[@johnl.7754]

This is why the world has air/ocean pollution, over fishing, deforestation, space junk…..problems.

[@boyahboy09]

Lol you are right. Tragedy of the commons I guess. Haha 😂

[@NaderNabilart]

Damn, you're good!

[@kentheengineer592]

I Challenge The Notion of The Argument of Have to Work, Ultimately If Food Gets Delivered Via Some Means That Doesn't Involve Human Intervention Perhaps Humans Don't Have to Work Like Nature Delivers Resources to Each Local Area

[@donb6514]

U should make videos about developing countries as wel

[@iyyakuttirajasekaran231]

Undoubtedly your video is of creative traits.

[@aryaaswale7316]

I know a lot of people that could benefit from hearing this

[@randomtourist6656]

Very well put. As having read George Owell Animal Farm, one is able to see why collective ownership collapses in itself once scaled up. At the heart of it all, the word ownership negates the word collective. As you put it, even in the best examples/cases of (Collective Ownership) that is, the family unit - marriage - religion etc, someone has to be incharge (lead - steer in a particular direction - make sacrifice for the collective good) or else it all falls apart. Our own bodies are the best examples, they only exist as a collective, but if you critically examine the body, you will see a hierarchy (the brain leads & takes majority stake in resources & is first to be protected & so on & so on) Eventually as Owell said "All animals are equally...BUT some animals are more......." P.s Where am from, we call collective ownership (Ujamaa), and it has failed miserably in this capitalism society

[@zenothemeano4381]

I love how ignorant both the person who made the comment is, as well as the video creator for favoriting this. Orwell was a literal socialist who supported the anarchist-communists in the spanish civil war. How the hell does that make him "anti-collective (aka democratic) ownership"

[@randomshift]

This is what you are thought at undergrad economics (I was). But the real world is more nuanced that oversimplifications presented in this video. Try to make a genuine video in support of collective ownership and find examples that work (there are plenty). Nor private nor collective ownership are appropriate in every case. Kind regards and good luck.

[@Chuby_ubesie]

He did talk about the "nuances", but your issue is more that he doesn't support your view on the matter. You say mandatory collective ownership works, just name 3 example

[@justinmacalintal8885]

Ah yes, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, the usual retort of the left-leaning. "That is not true collective ownership, therefore the video is wrong and oversimplified" or "That is not real communism". The fact that a lot of people liked your comment simply shows how many, especially the younger college educated ones, are duped into flawed leftist thinking.

[@justinmacalintal8885]

@@Chuby_ubesie oh no, you just asked him a real-world example that works! You never ask those who are leaning left or who sympathize with communist principles real-world examples that can be applied to entire countries. You know why? Because they never provide any. They always resort to the 'no true Scotsman' argument, ie. "That is not real communism" eg. "The USSR is not really communist"

[@tobi2731]

@@Chuby_ubesie There are large efficiently operating cooperatives like Mondragon (based in the Basque country) for instance. EDEKA, the largest German supermarket chain is also a cooperative or Zen-Noh in Japan or Crédit Agricole in France. Cooperatives have often proved to be more resilient than other forms of enterprise.

[@yihanwang2233]

@@tobi2731 He said "mandatory collective ownership". Your examples are all voluntary. They are just voluntary companies/partnerships with large number of owners. You are not refuting the video author's and @Chibuikem Ubesie's point. Please read others' words carefully.

[@theboredbangladeshi9437]

The raven flies again!

[@EconomicRaven]

🤞

[@Montfortracing]

While the premise of this video is well stated, the wrong terms are actually used. This video was mostly about collectivism, not collective ownership. There's nothing inherently wrong with collective ownership, it's actually quite desirable (for example, credit unions). But what this video rails against is actually collectivism, the idea to apply collective ownership to the broader society. As he rightly pointed out in the video, the best collective ownership is voluntary. Unfortunately he goes on to say that a collective ownership enforced to the broader society is called collective ownership, but that's not collective ownership, that's called collectivism. Thus, the more accurate title for this video should've been The Problems with Collectivism.

[@carbonurbuddy3456]

Totally agree ...i grew up in a joint family, my father and his 3 other brothers lived in a single big home. Responsibilities were a mess all hose maintenance were always not as expected by some everytime someone did something the other would be upset...in total we were 19 people .... living nuclear is better in my eyes. Plus glad to have you back😁

[@fleurdepapaye9635]

Is that from direct results of lack of rules and leadership?

[@jeffersonselikemnyame9516]

Totally agree, in some countries there are social structures to maintain public property and even more such cases these social structures do not do what’s expected of them, how much more mandatory collective ownership

[@AgustinBad]

I think this is a very weak argument and a straw man fallacy. Taking collective ownership as equal as "anything goes" or "vale todo" is huge misundestanding. Since every right in essence has a duty as correlative, there is no fundamental contradiction on having responsabilities and accountability within a right of collective ownsership. Those who do not fulfill their responsibility can be relegated from their right to property. Also, the argument is very biased because you are assuming the best or worst whereas suits your argument, as anything in life sometimes this works fairly and sometimes not, depends on the maturity and empathy of the group, so be wise when choosing your fellows. Finally, if a particular people are bad at sharing their goods (like the tv), it proves that probably they are inmature not that there is no good on sharing.

[@importantname]

to a child every thing is simple, obvious and easy to fix. Then you grow up.l

[@klsan4249]

The final part about rights vs responsibilities is spot on. Many want rights but do not want to be responsible. Sad case for humanity.

[@hydromic2518]

Yeah like many people want the right of freedom of speech but don’t use it responsible

[@MaxIsStrange1]

@@hydromic2518 I disagree. I strongly believe that the sentiment of categorizing speech into responsible or irresponsible “brackets” is a terrible idea that ends up encouraging governments, social media, etc. to limit people’s free speech which is the foundation of any free and functioning society. Defamation, direct calls to violence, etc. are already illegal which leaves you with at worst speech that is unpleasant to hear but being an adult kinda requires you to be able to deal with hearing things you don’t approve of. What I’m driving at is that the alternative of accepting that people say things you don’t like is much much worse-you get a governing body arbitrarily deciding whether or not what you say is acceptable which would inevitably mean the death of democracy.

[@zenothemeano4381]

Tags: Communists getting OWNED Imagine having no self-awareness to add that as a tag.

[@aryaaswale7316]

Totally agree theres a lot of people in the world that need to understand this especially in poorer countries

[@disrael2101]

You forgot to mention that if you put responsibilities and restrictions on the common that wants to use that objective the collective way can works just fine

[@eetjebordop1487]

I do kinda agree but as a dutchie we have a company (im not sure if the company is dutch but it does operate in the netherlands) the company is called goscooter and its kinda like rental company mixed with collectivization as far as i know the company is succesfull. I do have to agree full collectivization isnt gonna work but with some checks and rules i think we can make it work

[@carlengeler3478]

I'm not quite sure about that company in particular but we have similar "ride-sharing" companies in Switzerland. In that case however the company owns the assets and manages/takes care of them. They are just rented out to others which is a big difference from the topic of this video.

[@ahmadal-hafez7779]

I guess you're trying to talk about communism in this video. your critique of collective ownership doesn't involve the fact that the government is responsible for organizing the land, what you are describing in this video is more similar to anarcho-capitalism. And yes people can earn more under communism not everyone is paid the same for example the highest wage in the Soviet Union was professor's wage.

[@martillodelajusticia7211]

About responsability in privitize land, privatize land it may be is a good way to organize a country and encourage competition of better ways to product from the resources available, but has someone the right to do whatever he wants inside the limit of that land when it doesn't affect other people private property and then won't get in to a trial from attacking other person property? As an example of case of decision in land that extends outside the land: Drinking water that pass from a land and extents to another piece of land that hasn't be privitize. What would happen if that part of land and animals that live there or resources that could be utilize by humans get affected by contamination. Is the solution to privatize everything so everything's can be negocisted between individuals. Is it fair that people can claim all the land and hold onto their property when they aren't doing and people can live there. What would it happen if there is no space free because is all under the hands of few? Maybe some collective decision needs to be taken and make decisions of what is fair or not even when that attacks individual rights in some way since we still live in the same planet, and we should get more fair with time.

[@Chuby_ubesie]

Self interest runs the world. Even collectivist communities that work only do so because the leaders/administrators (politicians) run it in such a way as to serve their self interests.

[@justinmacalintal8885]

It never works and has never proven to work. The closest we have is probably the kibbutz system in Israel but even that is not applicable to larger scale societies or entire countries. Collectivism simply never works the way it is expected to work.

[@pussyslayer1569]

Managerial class from colectiev ownership? too familiar

[@lambradi]

there's a huge number of flaws in most of this video's arguments

[@STA12345]

And yet you did not name one ? 🤔

[@braderaku]

@@STA12345 he can't lol

[@TheDonnyl]

I actually am disappointed with the video. Almost all of the points a very amorphous and hard to grasp. It would have been much better to for example focus on the problems of co-ops such as the delusion of shares in the company when a new worker is hired.

[@IamKyuTee]

Those who want the collective ownership of property should be required to give an equal division of their income to every citizen in their country. I guarantee a few months if that requirement will change their minds.

[@sarmientoenricomiguelv.562]

Aka Socialism is a bad idea

[@pussyslayer1569]

400 views how?

[@mipouji8432]

I'd like to welcome you to Georgism...

[@teekaa2520]

Dislike

[@plantarum3276]

I do not (fully)agree in any statement. Very one sided perspective :(

[@onlycyz]

Cold War propaganda video 💀

[@LuvLuvBear]

This looks more like ideological propaganda than economic analysis

[@neodlehoko404]

You know Aristotle could say all that BS because he lived in a world where women and slaves were subjugated into taking on all those "responsibilities" that he says people wouldn't want to take on in collectively owned land, right? And he pretty much thought that's all they were good for. Its not that much different today. Anyway there's a lot more to collective ownership than you indicate. You're right to say that if its collective then isn't ownership; but you're wrong to think people can't take responsibility of "the commons" all the same. The "Tragedy of the commons" was an invention of the Noble classes in order to justify enclosing as much land as they could get away with in order to force people into debt peonage or serfdom. Meanwhile, as they were doing that, the Native Americans were enjoying the land that they held in common and not killing each other off in order to accumulate more and more power - because there was simply no power in land (at least no power over other people). There are many anthropologists and historians and archeologists who have disproved this kind of economic theory by now, come on. ((For reference check out Peter Linebaugh, David Wengrow, Marcus Rediker, David Graeber... etc.)) It's not even new, the economic myths are just really loud and persistent. Just think about it: How much more Utopian can it get than an "Ideal economic man" who makes the "Ideal economic decisions" motivated purely by "financial self interest" - and then banks and institutions penalize real people for not behaving like the "Ideal economic man." Its a trap and they're using *you* to pull people into it 👀

[@thepope2412]

"aristotle is wrong because he supported popular views at the time" the pilgrims tried collective ownership and ran into the tragedity of the commons, suffered great famine. Then land was divided up and distributed and people worked for themselves. They experienced prosperity after that. The native americans literally bought guns to kill other tribes with

[@neodlehoko404]

@@thepope2412 Popular views aren't universal views. Just because Nazism was popular in Germany at one time, that doesn't mean everyone in Germany held those views. Ya know. We can agree that even if Hitlers men were a product of their time... they were still wrong. Anyway; the pilgrims didn't try shit. The "tragedy of the commons" was imported from Europe where it had been used as an excuse to enclose land. Land grabs, right? Some were escaping debt and cruel oppression, others were specifically there to make a profit off of gold, resources, and land ownership. They didn't come to the Americas to change their existing paradigms, they came to impose the paradigms they knew - especially paradigms under the god they knew. Did Natives also kill each other; sure, and many were fighting empire-like native nations that they were trying to keep at bay. Because the Americas were just as complex and contradictory as any other place. Lots of interesting and fun things were happening. Point is, when someone tries to imply capitalism is the only way; know that they haven't exactly read up on the other sources.

[@olska9498]

@@neodlehoko404 Have you ever been to a public bathroom? You see the tragedy of the commons happening there. Go, trade your private bathroom with a public bathroom, but don't force it on other people.

[@sivasubramanianr7528]

@olska9498 That's like living with the idea of private ownership & not knowing a damn about social responsibility as you've grown in a capitalistic society where you don't care about the public & blaming about the tragedy of the common!

[@neodlehoko404]

@@olska9498 a bathroom is not a common. Unless you're talking about public bathouses? Those are usually great. All that aside, the only system that leaves you with no choice is capitalism - the rule of exploited commons has been made universal (I mean this is what colonialism was all about), when was the last time you felt like you could casually abandon capitalism and try something different just because you can? Or maybe you are just so wealthy and fortunate that you wouldn't want the exploitation to end anyway? Or maybe something else, what do I know.

[@noekahn2073]

Very poor, do not appeal to nature for argumentation (last part before final thoughts) This is an obvious logical fallacy as you could claim anything

[@paganlecter6819]

Leftists have left the chatroom

[@dariocavegn4052]

How about a video about housing cooperatives and why they work? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative Collective ownership doesn't need to be the sort of one-size-fits-all disaster that Communism was. It makes sense in some contexts, and zero sense in others... Great channel!

[@sivasubramanianr7528]

@EconomicRaven why don't you reply to the critics placed upon your view? Not even a single response to the questions/views questioned your video! Just ignoring the responsibilities as said in the video & just getting aroused by the cheering comments ryt! Hypocrite🥱