This is probably most obvious among the formerly communist nations, where many have allegedly had the opportunity, but when in power, and faced with hard choices, they often choose the old collectivist way. And for a young person, collectively holding property seems reasonable, as it usually provides a young person with more access than he would otherwise have. The trouble is, said young person growing up in a collective system misses out on the lessons he would have had as he began to grow as a private owner.
With private property, individuals learn at scale, beginning relatively small, growing slowly, discovering limitations, often able to improve in subsequent iterations until they get it right. Of course, this can and should be done with the advice of, and in the company of many friends comprising a community, but the point is an individual needs the lessons. Many people have the lessons and fail, but, for example, the kibbutzniks never got the lessons at all.
Instead, the collectivists get lessons in ephemeral living situations, and often become perceived as trained and/or wise. The worst part of this isn't just that such 'experts' are only experts in non-reality, but that under the collectivist leadership model, such experts are introduced into leadership near the top, so their inevitable missteps reach far and wide. Everybody makes mistakes, but with private property someone may make such a mistake with one house, learn from it, and fix it. Even if he fails completely the problems are limited to his own land. The collectivist leader can make a similar mistake, but effect thousands of homes, often without ever personally feeling the negative effects, and perhaps even persisting in error.