Quote Originally Posted by Anixx View Post
They could

- rent a flat from the state in a multi-storey building (this right could not be revoked by the state and the payment was virtually non-existent, the right would be inherited by those who live in the flat)
- being a member of a house-building cooperative (condominium?) with a share, corresponding to a flat in a multi-storey building (with the right to sell the share, that is the flat).
Alright. So, since we're talking about the urbanized society, let's stick with those two options, shall we?

So, the first option meant a young family would have to wait in line in the first come - first served basis and agree to whatever option (location-wise) was available. That could take a very significant time. So, where the young family ought to live for the time being?

The second option meant a young family would have to have a significant amount of money to enter the building cooperative. For example, by the mid 80's, the cost of a small cooperative apartment in Moscow was a couple of thousands rubles. How that money could be earned in the state where an average family monthly income was about 200 - 300 rubles was a mystery. There was another special mystery for a young family who managed to gather that amount with the help of all their relatives and ought to wait for 10 years or more for their cooperative apartment to be built. And where they were supposed to live for the time being?

That does not necessarily to say those options did not exist, but just to correct an assumption those options were in any way better than the options a typical young western family would experience. Were they any worse - that's a topic for another discussion.

However, I agree with you that the notion of the private property and protecting it is only practically applicable to a non-personal belonging. The private property would either be the means of production (aka private entrepreneurship) or an investment (aka speculation). And the protection of private property means that people have some kind of assurance from the state: I'm starting a business and I'm paying the state the "protection money" so that the state would maintain itself (aka buy itself some nice buildings and yachts) and protect my business from the gangs and the vandals. In the situation where everything belongs to the state, the protection of private property does not make much sense.

The only real difference for the working class was the principle of "confiscation" which was in the very core of the Soviet Law system.

Say, you're a tenant in a state-owned apartment. If you disobey the state (aka break the law), that apartment would be taken from you by the state (aka the confiscation of the belongings). And that also applies to the other belongings you mentioned: a private country-home, a cooperative apartment, a car, etc. (By the way, that was a primary reason why some of the law-breakers had a habit to register their belongings on their wife's name so as not to loose everything once they come back from the jail.) But, the society which protects private property has a different law - you would be obliged to liquidate your private property only to compensate another party for the amount decided by the court and the rest of the value of the property is yours. In the Soviet Law system there was an entity named "the people" and the law-breakers had to compensate "the people" i.e. the state. And it some cases it was very difficult to estimate the damage. For example, if you secretly made private business producing something (e.g. the food) and selling it privately beyond the norms allowed by the state, you made the proprietary damage to "the people" since the "extra food" that you produced belongs to "the people" and you stole that from "the people" and it's very difficult to estimate the price. Hence, the confiscation of everything (with the subsequent imprisonment).