>>What amazes me, though, is why was the transition, in practically all cases I know of, envisioned as wholesale robbery of all this state or communal property? Why did these communal forms of production have to lose legal ground? If they were so bad, why not let them compete with better forms of ownership and/or production, and let the best guy win? Why was it necessary to let all this wealth go to pieces, so it could be bought for pittance by the new oligarchs? Why was capitalism so unsure of its advantages to feel the need to tilt the field so steeply?
>
>Without going to lengthy explanations, it is quite enough to say, that I have low opinion about 'communal' property. Also, I have much higher opinion about private property contribution to our civilization.

Yep, just the other day I enjoyed the benefits of private property over communal. I had to sneak into a parking reserved for trucks tugging boats so I could make a few pictures of the bay. Never mind that it was nearly empty and that there was nobody watching, we were still trespassing in a way - there was a sign saying what the parking is for. Every other piece of the coast was fenced off.

Who needs communal property, anyway?