Private and social property

Throughout human history, we have known private and social property. Social property is usually state property, which is primarily managed by politicians, or those party representatives who are currently in power. In addition, we also know corporate property as a form of property of a company, which was established by the founding partners and possibly later also by investors, who elect the director or manager of the company or occupy this position in the company themselves through the majority share of ownership or appoint the manager or director.

At first glance, these debates about private and social ownership look quite ridiculous. And perhaps the confusion about ownership management is not just a matter of post-socialist societies and countries where most people have had a hard time weaning themselves off the management of majority state assets. In socialism, there is no private ownership on a large scale, not from factories to real estate and agricultural land. And most of the administrators of this social property are also usually appointed by party leaders. And, of course, it must be taken into account that most socialist countries do not know a multi-party system. The rise or fall of the one-party system and, of course, the one-ideal system is very clearly outlined in these societies. All others who are not members of this unified system are sanctioned or excluded from this system. The rule "you're ours or you're gone" applies. And of course, the similarity between "on the royal are those who are the king's most loyal subjects" and between "on the party or state are the most loyal party members or defenders and members of the one-party system".

In such systems and inherited cultural patterns of authority, there are also the biggest problems with recognizing the management of one's property and, of course, disposing of it. We also have to take into account the fact that there is actually no country where you can manage your property completely freely. By this I do not mean the fact that by managing our property we must not interfere with the rights of other owners or cause them damage through our management of our property or our activities. All state structures are very happy to limit the free management of property with various regulations, despite the fact that your free management would not cause any harm to others. We also know aesthetic regulations, such as the shape of the house, a certain type of firewood, the color, shape and material of roofing, certain activities in a certain environment, and etc.

In short, there is no free management of property even where the majority is private property. Even in this case, society and the state determine or define private property through various regulations and laws, be it real estate or land or also the form of private property.

The biggest difference between private and social management was precisely the responsibility for one's own management. Private ownership is very often lost or destroyed through poor management. State management, although it is carried out by individuals, mostly falls under social responsibility in case of bad management, and the country is rarely named as individual culprits.