It isn't too surprising that those that have been left behind in society, or are lacking in opportunity, and correspondingly are without with what they consider to be their fair share of material goods, that many of these people have a propensity to desire a more socialistic or communistic society. It is their belief, that when all that is material is owned by nobody, and instead is shared alike, according to each person's needs, that thereby some sort of material utopia occurs. Of course, there is the belief behind having a socialistic or communistic society, and then there is the material aspects of how it would actually come about; in which, because in the present day, in most nations, a significant portion of property is privately owned as well as there also being a significant amount of business being transacted between private parties, all of this private engagement would have to be eliminated or truncated, which could only be accomplished through the use of force to thereby take from those that have, and to thereby give to those that have not. Further to the point, that force would in the scheme of things have to be directed and implemented by some powerful entity or institution, of which, the most likely entity would be a military organization with the armament might to compel those lacking in such armaments or necessary organization to withstand such, to comply with their demands.
So then, assuming that the socialistic or communistic overthrow of a particular nation that had private property as well as private enterprise was accomplished, that power would now be solely vested in the hands of that entity with the guns, and thereby that government would be in forceful control of all that transpired within its borders. So too, it would be that government that would control the means of production, the houses so built, the jobs so provided, and obligations of the people so demanded, of which, the people themselves would have no say so, but would be compelled to obey the dictates of that governmental state, or pay the price for being disloyal. This would surely mean that because the government would without the existence of private enterprise, be the sole employer that the people would not be able to choose their pathway of employment, but would be instructed as to where they fit in. Additionally, without private property, all those that were not in good conformance to that government would have no viable sanctuary to turn to. Further to the point, since it would be that government that controlled who got the best benefits and who did not, the people would have a strong tendency to be corrupt in all aspects, as well as to spy on their fellow citizens on behalf of the state, in order to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
On the other hand, a nation which values private property and private enterprise sees itself as a government that has a purpose to protect and to defend property and enterprise for the wholesale benefit of the people. The principle of that government would be to see that all people have a fair chance at the opportunity to be something of merit, and thereby would provide those citizens with the necessary base of safe neighborhoods, good healthcare, good schooling, fairness, enfranchisement, justice, equality, meritocracy, and the appropriate taxation to provide the necessary funding for that government; of which that government of, by, and for the people would faithfully utilize its legitimacy and influence to secure the blessings of liberty for all.