Where the stories start...

Wednesday, November 5, 2025

Communism equals Tragedy of the Commons

I am slowly grinding my way through the book "The Little Ice Age". I can honestly say that I am reading it at a glacial pace.

I am at the point where the author is writing about the quantum leap in agricultural productivity that allowed the urban population to explode and provided the labor for the Industrial Revolution.

The primary enabler for that huge leap in productivity was the elimination of "the commons" through the Enclosure Act. That is, the Enclosure Act eliminated the public ownership of the pasture and woods in favor of private ownership. Why would that make a difference?

Capital Improvements

Most of the land that was held in common was not prime farm-land. It was what was left over after the best lands had been put under the plow. Much of the left-over land was land that was flood-prone marshland and boggy soils. The concepts of ditching and draining were well known but there were no economic mechanism outside of some monasteries where the benefits of the venture could be equitably shared in proportion to the vast amounts of labor required to make it happen. Lacking such a mechanism, ditching and draining didn't happen.

The famous "Chalkstreams" of England are drainage ditches through bogs that were dug by monks. You can see in this image that the level of the field rises slightly as it approaches the stream.

Once those marshes were fenced in, enclosed, the owners of the fields would receive the entire benefit of the ditching, diking and pumping. And ditch, dike and pump they did.

Inbreeding

In the mid-1600s there were only about 15 "breeds" of dogs in extent: scent hounds, sight hounds, mastiffs, herding dogs and so on. In a similar way, there were land-races of cattle and sheep that were multi-purpose. That is because, lacking fences, any intact male animal could and would breed any receptive female of the same species. The infrastructure was not in place to scientifically breed for specific goals like more milk production or air-scenting game birds.

Once fencing/hedges were in place, a farmer could select for better wool or more milk and since he didn't let the livestock outside of the fence, his neighbors had to pay him for the breeding privileges. As the number of recognized breeds increased, so did "fairs" and ribbons and awards.

At the time of this writing, the American Kennel Club recognizes 202 breeds of dogs.

Husbanding the soil

Another positive impact of the Enclosure Act was that if a farmer planted a specialized fodder crop during a parcel's fallow-cycle, then he could feed livestock on the parcel as the soil recovered.

He could plant red clover and perennial ryegrass, for instance, which not only broke the disease cycle for small grains but it produced excellent hay for animals, nectar for honeybees AND it fixed nitrogen in the soil. That contrasts to the dog's breakfast of (often unpalatable) weeds like smartweed, amaranth, chenopodium, thistles and foxtail grasses that volunteered in the common fields during the fallow period.

By intentionally planting the best species, the farmer was able to harvest crops of hay and honey AND he was able to recharge the soil with nutrients in two years instead of five. That simply didn't happen when all of the cost would be levied against the innovator yet everybody in the village got an equal share of the benefit.

Tragedy of the Commons

Garrett Hardin wrote a short monograph that he titled "Tragedy of the Commons". 

He sketches out the "Prisoner's Dilemma" logic that inevitably leads to over-exploitation of shared resources like The Commons.

In five sentences:  If there are six families sharing the commons and if each family has one milk-cow, then each family gets the benefit of 1/6th of the forage growing in the commons. The first family to add one more cow gets 2/7ths of the benefit since they own two of the seven cows grazing. Each family, in turn, makes similar decisions. Soon there are 12 cows grazing a pasture that comfortably supported six. In a very short time, the grass is grazed down to the roots and all 12 cows are starving. 

Summary

All of these seemingly unrelated bits of information weave together and demonstrate why Communism is doomed to fail. It failed in The Commons. The economic gains from the great Enclosure are reversible. California, multiply blessed by the Creator with great weather, great harbors, oil, minerals, fertile soil, great universities and strategic location...it turned into a Sh---ole country over the last three decades. Chicago did two. And now New York.

If such abundantly blessed states and cities are eviscerated by a failed economic system (Communism), what hope do locations less blessed then them have if we embrace it on a national scale? 

I guess we are going to have front-row seats.

27 comments:

  1. Good historical fiction including accounts of the period around implementation of the Enclosure Act in some of the later books of Wareham's "A Poor Man at the Gates" series. Good fast, long, fun read that happens to explore the era and impacts of this and other changes underway in the British empire and around the world at that time. Privateers to upper class Victorians. Highly recommended. (Obviously no interest other than I enjoy his works. Ignore the book covers - don't reflect the writing well IMHO.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS - while searching for this series I noticed my Kindle copies of Seven Cows, etc. Time for a re-read. Thanks again for the stories. (Resisting asking for more. Not well, but resisting.)

      Delete
  2. Socialism (communism lite) and Communism have a long track record as far back as the "Pilgrims" of Plymouth Colony of failure and starvation.

    Yet that historical record seldom shows up to speak when new starry eyed young folks declare it the "Solution" to the Evils of Capitalism.

    Asking them what direction the Cubans (East Germans) fled to after leaving Communism is almost always met with "WELL THAT WASN'T TRUE Communism".

    "If such abundantly blessed states and cities are eviscerated by a failed economic system (Communism), what hope do locations less blessed then them have if we embrace it on a national scale?

    I guess we are going to have front-row seats."

    Yes, and I am sadder my children and grands will get the worst of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The story of The Little Red Hen "Who will help me plant the wheat...?" captures the fact that most people will not break into a sweat to "do the right thing" but will still expect a share of the windfall. The starry-eyed youth wax eloquent about the good-will of humanity but think picking up a broken bottle is somebody else's job. They cannot see how the two are related.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The "Know everything" "starry eyed kids" for communism. The no work ethic but my comrades will take care of me kids.

      The same folks that will send you to the "Struggle Sessions" for anti-revolutionary thoughts.

      I deleted my earlier post as afterwards I saw where you got Starry Eyed Youth.

      Sadly, parents failed to give their kids enough tough times to give them strength and spiritual-ethical ANCHORS to judge if they were being told nonsense or what.

      Too many of us turned over the PARENTING over to School and College Teachers and never visited the classrooms to see what they were getting taught.

      My Grands know the Little Red Hen story, I told them and they know how to plant a pancake patch because THEY wanted to BE the Little Red Hen.

      My grands are starting that dating stuff. Frankly I'm concerned but they know they can call me and I will come and get them, no questions but I will listen if they need that.

      My Grands know about socialism-communism and have learned that like in the old school military keeping your head down and not arguing with fools is safer than being RIGHT. Just avoid them later I taught them.

      I taught them Mike and the Mechanics "Silent Running" and I think they understand it now.

      Hopefully they will avoid the "struggle sessions" or at least "pass them well enough".

      Delete
  3. Great post Joe. It summed up the historical base of the argument. ---ken

    ReplyDelete
  4. The ONLY system that works long term is Capitalism: Human Greed works, all others fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.”
      ― Robert A. Heinlein

      Delete
  5. Heh heh. Well played ERJ, well played.

    I was about halfway through the post and thought "The Tragedy of the Commons" - and lo, it appeared!

    Lovely summary of the benefits of "Not the Commons". Interesting to me that people who claim to care about things like the Creation around them fail to connect those dots.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Communism is always doomed to fail. Yet communism...by some name or another...will always be with us insuring pain, suffering and death. Because communism as talked about appeals to the basic laziness of too many people. Especially people who have never actually seen it in full fledged practice. As long as most people are lazy whenever hey can be we will have the spectre of communism always present. Because we are not an intelligent species, merely a clever one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see what you mean about the commons in places like Western Europe where you had fairly small groups of farms sharing the commons. What about the people who live in the mountains like Switzerland and Afghanistan. You can have farmers who send the cattle, sheep, or goats off to upland grazing for the spring, summer and fall and they bring the results down to trade or like the people who established international trade with the “butter road” that lead out of the mountains of Afghanistan to India!



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's talk about central Asia and similar, brittle climates.

      It is my perception that the flock of sheep/goats/cattle quickly graze down a given meadow and the person watching them moves them to fresh grazing. And it doesn't have to be mountains, it can be chasing the browse that greens-up after stray clouds drop rain in the desert.

      The animals graze what is green and them move on which gives it time to recover. The "move on" is a cost that counter-balances the size of the flock. If the flock is too large then it spends too much time walking without eating and it does not gain weight and it grows poor-quality wool that breaks when spun. The fact that the cost is borne by the owner of the sheep rather than the village is what makes the equilibrium mechanism stable.

      Is it perfect? No. The rains/snow melt varies from year-to-year. Water holes in the desert dry up. Predators, parasites and disease can knock-back the numbers of grazing animals. It is not perfect but it works well enough to expand the resource base that humans can exploit.

      Another example of this class of problem is Departments of Natural Resources managing game populations through limited hunting seasons and issuing licenses for specific counties or ecosystems.

      Delete
  8. Commietown.
    https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/4b/a3/09/4ba309f2ef91741fcb4db5f3f8d3762d.mp4

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tragedy of the COMMons

    COMMunism

    COMMunity Organizer. Remember that guy?

    Words mean things. Pay attention please.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great post Joe. Nice explanation in simple terms, with examples.
    Southern NH

    ReplyDelete
  11. The fired professor who never failed a student; just the whole class. At the start of the semester he would ask the class if they wanted to do a focus on Marxist theory ( socialism/communism) and if the class wanted it he adjusted for it. All he did was average all the grades so everyone got the same grades, on tests, papers all class work. Not one class that voted for the special focus passed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "... the elimination of "the commons" through the Enclosure Act. That is, the Enclosure Act eliminated the public ownership of the pasture and woods in favor of private ownership."

    This account is both commonplace and false. It's essentially agitprop. Woods were largely privately owned and managed: pasture in about one third of England was often grazed "in common" but not by all and sundry. Only the specified Commoners had a right to graze the commons.

    The commons were emphatically not in "public ownership". Typically ownership resided with the Lord of the Manor who had the right to any minerals under, and any timber that grew on, the common land: the grazing rights belonged to the Commoners. The arable rights belonged to a subset of the Commoners - that subset might or might not include the Lord of the Manor. All the Commoners who had grazing rights would also have rights to take hay off the meadow.

    "the "Prisoner's Dilemma" logic that inevitably leads to over-exploitation of shared resources like The Commons." But that's false too. Almost always Commoners - in England, at least, which is obviously what you are discussing - had "stints" that put a limit on their grazing. So the occupant of Green Cottage might have the right to graze three cattle and four geese: the occupant of Brown Cottage might also have a right to graze - but his stint might allow a four cattle while excluding geese. And so on. I mention their cottages because that's how the Commoners were identified: only the Heads of Household who occupied particular properties had common rights - not just anyone. History relates though that all sorts of bums and chancers tried to claim common rights to which they were not entitled. Because that's the sort of thing humans do, isn't it?

    Not only is that a more accurate account it also happens to agree with an anecdatum. I had a colleague who bought a cottage in the New Forest. To her amusement she found it made her a Commoner with rights to graze - in her case - a stint of ponies. She was too busy with her job to take up her rights but still, she owned them in the usual way - by being the occupant of that property. A house built more recently would not have imparted common rights.

    Indeed when the Commissioners of an enclosure were trying to establish who was entitled to common rights they knew they could exclude anyone who resided in recently built property where "recent" might mean "during the last few centuries".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank-you for reading. And thank-you for making such an informed, well composed comment.

      I can see the utility of specifying the numbers of specific livestock on the commons. One account that I read claimed there was one draft-horse and able-bodied plough-man for every 25 acres. It takes several years to grow and train a usable draft-horse. It would destroy food security if everybody decided "Hey, I am going to raise sheep, and only sheep this year." They wouldn't have anything to work the land.

      One parallel between the "new cottages" not having commons-privileges and what is happening in New York City is that NYC has "rent controlled" apartments and people game the system. They subdivide the apartment into multiple units and rent out the space. Next-of-kin do not inform the managers that the original leasee died and continue to live in the apartment.

      Mamdani proposes dealing with the haves-havenots by creating more rent-controlled units rather than dealing with the fraud.

      Delete
  13. I ma gonna save this piece! Quite cogentt arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you're interested in the history of England in that era, William Cobbett's writings cover the period immediately after.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another example of the tragedy of the commons is probably the north Atlantic cod fisheries. No oversight or regulation, all out for what they could get, followed by collapse of the cod stocks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I have no experience of fishing for cod but as a boy I did go out on an inshore trawler fishing for flatfish and shrimp. We were part of an over-fishing problem that depleted the shrimp stock so badly that people gave up the business. They then sailed for further waters and fished for different catches. Or just gave up being fishermen.

      It always struck me as a rare example of a case where government intervention could conceivably have been helpful. By contrast our governments almost always intervene in the wrong matters and make things worse. I am firmly of the persuasion that our (British) government's budget could usefully be reduced by 80 or 90%.

      Does anyone know of a successful existing system to prevent over-fishing (apart from exotica like whales)? If anyone says "How about the EU's?" I'll give a mocking laugh.

      Delete
    2. The Hawaiian laws under Kapu.

      Delete
    3. "By contrast our governments almost always...make things worse."

      Fishing subsidies were estimated to be $35 billion (3.5e+10) USD in 2018.

      Delete

Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.