My reading has put me between two radical ideas of what you should own. That is, share everything, or restrict your life to the patch of land that you have outright paid for. Although self-reliance doesn't make explicit normative claims about society as a whole, its conclusions fit neither in a communist utopia nor in established capitalism.
But maybe, the advantages individuals could have from communism might just as well exist in a world of private property where simple wants are encouraged; where needs are sought to be met. Additionally, it appears that the word communism is wildly misleading in this regard, giving the wrong idea of what humans might get from it. If implemented in an ideologically clean way, it is not the community, but every single person who receives.
Although I don't feel ready to talk about the implications any such ideology has on society, application to the individual doesn't receive the attention it deserves. If, for example, you seek to find security not in the acquisition of objects, but through friendship with those who are willing to share, the risk of loss might be lower than otherwise. For, when a multitude is caring to keep up access to a good that is seen as desirable, neither the greed of those around you nor accidents are allowed to interfere. A wonderful example is the community garden of this small New Zealand village. Besides the advantages of humanity and nature, it has spawned frequent social events for likeminded people around it. Likewise, the ever-growing list of friends from my wwoofing has alleviated my concerns about transportation and accommodation. My time as a boy scout also comes to mind; strangers will help to great extents if your intentions are utterly and not superficially good.
There is a certain romanticism attached to denying ownership. It is for the reason that historically, who dethrones the king will burn records of land ownership. Fortunately, no violence need be involved for you to reap the same benefits.