Yeah, I didn't understand the socialism=lack of personal belongings at all. The socialists I've read/known often do promote a lifestyle that is simple, but I don't recall anyone writing/saying that pencils and shoes should be owned communally. That's ridiculous, no?
I am not a socialist, but I think its useful to paraphrase certain Proudhon(anarchist and socialist) arguments here:
You cannot own property* or protect a landowner's rights to property** in a society in which equality, individual liberty and justice are highly valued without one or more of these ideals being diminished in favor of property rights.*** The right of the landowners to their property has to be "continually defended against the poor man's desire for property": equality, liberty and justice are all diminished when, in favor of property rights, the law permits that an unused portion of land not be used to produce wealth by the landless poor.
Probably the most obvious consequence of property rights is that something that could have been produced will not be - this is detrimental to economic growth and to, in many ways to the real owner of the land, the government. For example, by prohibiting the poor from using land in productive ways, simply because someone has claimed the land prior, you close off many options that could allow them to escape poverty. They must pay rent to the privileged landowners instead of using that money to produce more wealth from untapped natural resources. (How much crime would be prevented if someone had the option to become wealthy/improve their quality of life instead of selling their labor for food and rent money?) The property owner is given special rights to a nation's natural resources, requiring a poor man to lease the land in order to use it or live on it, which is an affront to the ideal of equality.
In other words, to reduce poverty, usury, crime and other social cancers in a country with copious amounts of unused private land (US, Canada anyone?) it would be necessary to grant possession rights to individuals, instead of property rights. If you don't use the land to produce something, to live on then you have no right to it. I'm not saying that this is the only socialist opinion on property and land possession, it just happens to be my favorite. I'm also not saying that people shouldn't be able to have any personal possessions(trampolines, computers, cars) or that they can't have large bank accounts, only that the land itself ought not be owned.
*(only possess it)
**rights to UNUSED land, land that is not possessed.
***(disregarding the fact that all "private property" is, more or less, owned by the government in whose jurisdiction that land happens to exist within)
EDIT: IF YOUR FORUM NAME STARTS WITH AN L AND ENDS WITH A K, DON'T REPLY TO ME!!!!!! JK, SORT OF.