Right wingers scare children and those with little knowledge about the actual proposals of communists with stuff like "they are going to expropiate your videogame, your blue jeans, your computer and your girlfriend and then your house. I am going to quote anarcho communist Alexander Berkman on this:
"The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title-not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, cooperatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."
Berkman proceeds from a point of view already established by Proudhon and also adhered to by american mutualist Benjamin Tucker which is establishing a difference between right to use or also called possession and ownership or also called private property. In this way there is more or less an anarchist consensus on this subject.
In the Spanish Revolution of 1936 the CNT FAI allowed peasants who owned land but didn´t employ in salaried relationship anyone to keep their land and proceded to collectivize the lands of the capitalists or latifundio landowners (if someone wants an outside reliable academic reference for this I could easily look for it and bring it).
In recently "developed" countries such as the so called "Asian Tigers" such as South Korea, Taiwan and in Japan as in revolutionary France after the 1789 revolution they expropiated feudal and semifeudal landowners and gave individual lands to the poor landless peasants. It is clear from this that in a lot of today´s capitalist countries this kind of "communist" measure in the minds of right wingers actually happened in a frame of mind focused on capitalist development. Nevertheless the idea of every single person having a private plot of land is not feasible due to evironmental reasons so a persons could very well guaranteed private housing but could work in a collective office or a collective farm and in my stirnerist nietzschetian individualist view I think that is fine with me and possibly it will be much more fun since ther will be no bosses and we could very well sing and play music and chat while we do work.
I am an anarcho communist who like others think that contemporary middle class families should keep their family homes and even a sort of inheritance is fine if parents decide to leave this particular family house to their children if they decide to keep living in that particular city or town.
Communism is a system mostly focused on "means of production" and not on housing, wifes, husbands or videogames. Its main enemies are the rich and not too much the middle classes. I think anarchocommunism might feel a threat to the sectors of the middle classes who wish to defend the contemporary consumerist machinery since it depends on making the working classes doing 8 hours or more (in asian maquiladoras sometimes even 14 hours) of manual work while important sectors of the middle classes have gone to universities and have a little less of authoritarian working conditions than the working class sometimes even being their supervisors.
Kropotkin is clear that he wants to significantly reduce daily working hours, he says :"Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work. Now, to give ten or eleven hours of leisure per day out of the sixteen during which we lead a conscious life (sleeping eight hours), means to enlarge individual liberty to a point which for thousands of years has been one of the ideals of humanity.
This can be done today in a Communist society man can dispose of at least ten hours of leisure. This means emancipation from one of the heaviest burdens of slavery on man. It is an increase of liberty. " Pëtr Kropotkin
Communism and Anarchy http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Petr_Kropotkin__Communism_and_Anarchy.html
So 11 out of 16 means 5 hours and so in the late 19th century he expected to achieve working only 5 hours daily and in the rest of time you can go and sleep all day, be socializing with friends, spending time (or fucking) with your one or more than one girldfriends/ boyfriends (depending if you are monogamous or polyamorous) or playing sports with friends and family , or creating art individually or collectively or reading or education yourself in the local library or in cooperative educational systems. With the current technological advancement I think we can expect even less working hours to be nessesary but it is clear we will have a problem if there was an expectation of keeping building roads, private automobiles, videogames, plasma tVs, casinos, brothels, i pods, office buildings, airports, planes, spaceships, cable TV programs, hollywood films, etc since there will be less collective interest and mobilization in rpducing that kind of innesesary crap that consumerist system and alienated societies have developed. So a sort of "post-materialist" culture could be expected to develop. Instead of being with an ipod in your travel to home or work in that kind of society you could go to local social centres to dance and listen to music with others every single day and for free and in travels to home and work have more chance fo chatting with the other people riding the bus.
If we have the roads that the capitalist system built we already have enough roads and actually some of these roads could actually be destroyed and we could plant a few more trees and lakes. There is already enough buildings and rooms for everyone, even individual persons to have an apartment and with less unnessesary crap being produced we can expect a lot of current office and store spaces to be replaced in use by social and community centres for use of affinity groups.
If i may, the Famous Lennon sentence could be modified for it to be in agreement with anarchist economic debate. This will be "life without private property", possessions everyone will have but of course less possesions than in todays society but more free time. So instead of porno cassetes more possible sexual partners in real life, instead of britney spears, Lady Gaga and Pop metal bands and CDs your own rock or folk band or more time for karaoke sessions with your friends and the local people. Instead of authentic scottish imported whisky your local artisan licquour, and so on. And even for dandies and girls who like makeup and all that shit, makeup and hairstyles all preceed capitalist cultures and even comptemporary "gutter punks" can be homeless sometimes and still have their hair green and all that. Even indians living in the amazonian jungle use something very close to makeup and nice jewerly so one can very well be pro-jewerly and pro makeup and an anticapitalist anarcho-communist (actually my case, i am an anticapitalist dandy like Oscar Wilde). Oh, i forgot, less or no private automobiles will be exchanged with bicicles, collective buses, trains and taxis and car sharing with friends and neighbors.
Nevertheless I think we should keep the internet and inter city and interoceanic travel in order to avoid the bad sides of sedentarism and provincialism and in order to have a stady flow of visitors.