When considering capitalist and communist ideology which seem to be either end of the political and economics spectrum and trying to assess which one is "better", i dont think people really consider the important issue of population. In an area of land where there is very few people (im thinking of pre-colonial africa for example), you have more to gain if there is common ownership and so therefore it would make sense to have a communistic mentality. If there are more people it makes sense to have a capitalistic or private property property mentality. A capitalistic mindset in an area with very few people cannot really be achieved and in fact you have potentially have more to lose than to gain, especially if you stop the few people that do exist from use of what ever land or objects you consider your property.
In the days of the hunter gatherer where there were very few people, it would make sense to have a communist mentality, and so primitive communism or anarcho-primitivism makes sense in this sort of circumstance.
In todays world where the world population is huge, it makes sense to have a private property mentality. Communism in todays world would not work because the benefits of it would be non existant due to the massive population.
Increase population creates scarcity, and scarcity is an important aspect to the creation of property.
Well there was little capital alright, but consumer goods were still scarce as hell, i mean thtats what kept the population down compared to farming societies. Wasnt enough to eat! So private ownership of consumer goods still makes economic sense.
No (in answer to OP). Specialization and capital accumilation to invest in long-term production where there are few people are even more important, since only then they can achieve a higher standard of living. They have nobody else to depend on.
That means property exchange (which presupooses private property), else the capital goods are squandered. Where this is not so, capital is even scarcer.
Edwin Cannan had a joke about this: A person in a depopulated and poor area is thinking of suicide. Why? Did a relative die? 'Did a relative die? We have LOST the needle!'
There is the argument that we are socio-biologically hard wired to interact with one another explicitly through common property. Our ancestors depended on it before the advent of agriculture etc. I know some have argued that this may be the source of people disliking implicit cooperation through trade and property rights despite its benefits.
The benefits of property rights are not dependent on population but on whether or not a group has progressed out from hunter-gatherer system.
When considering capitalist and communist ideology which seem to be either end of the political and economics spectrum and trying to assess which one is "better", i dont think people really consider the important issue of population. In an area of land where there is very few people (im thinking of pre-colonial africa for example), you have more to gain if there is common ownership and so therefore it would make sense to have a communistic mentality. If there are more people it makes sense to have a capitalistic or private property property mentality. A capitalistic mindset in an area with very few people cannot really be achieved and in fact you have potentially have more to lose than to gain, especially if you stop the few people that do exist from use of what ever land or objects you consider your property. In the days of the hunter gatherer where there were very few people, it would make sense to have a communist mentality, and so primitive communism or anarcho-primitivism makes sense in this sort of circumstance. In todays world where the world population is huge, it makes sense to have a private property mentality. Communism in todays world would not work because the benefits of it would be non existant due to the massive population. Increase population creates scarcity, and scarcity is an important aspect to the creation of property.
The problem with common ownership is not that it doesn't work with large populations, it's that it just doesn't work at all. Ownership is really a way of dividing scarce physical resources in space and time such that they can be controlled by specific individuals without conflict. Let's take a communist country where a railroad is being built. The communist workers use sledge hammers to drive the rail spikes. These sledge hammers are the property of the state or, what is supposed to be the same, they are no one's property, they are owned in common. The democratic "general will" is what has decreed (or so the theological dogma of communism goes) that the hammers will be used for driving the railroad stakes. But no matter, at any particular time, the hammer is being swung by one individual. If two individuals attempt to hold onto and swing the hammer, there is a conflict. Property - that is, social conventions for dividing control over scarce physical resources in space and time - is what makes conflict-free action possible. While we mean something more by "ownership" than just mere possession or use, nevertheless, ownership (property) is the ultimate expression of the physical fact that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Either you are swinging the hammer or I am. We cannot both be swinging the hammer. This problem remains regardless of the population size or the economic superstitions of the individuals.
You are correct that private property is less important when population size is small. The reason for this is that private property is a means of dividing scarce physical resources. We do not have property in air or property in view of the stars or property in surnames because these things are not scarce. There is no reason that conflicts should arise over things that are not scarce so no social conventions for avoiding and resolving conflict are required.
Clayton -