The paper this article talks about was authored by an evolutionary biologist that wanted to talk about environmental science problems and social responsibility. Ignoring the concepts of personal property and ownership and stuff, think about this for a minute. 81% of Americans own a yard, but how many of them do you see growing crops in that space? How much more effectively COULD that land be utilized towards the common good if it were managed in some way? Or from the other side: the Alaskan government had to step in and put a halt on Bering Sea crab harvests for a few years because the numbers were critically low. Do you think all of the individual fishermen who are reliant on that income would have voluntarily stopped? Would they even have known the crab population was dwindling?

I can see thinking the tragedy of the commons is capitalist propaganda if you think there is a hard line between people and corporations.

The North Sea fishing industry didn't collapse because too many of the proletariat wanted to do a lot of fishing, it collapsed because thousands of people organized into dozens of groups that systematically overstrained the ecosystem. Because those groups wanted to make more profit for a small group of hundreds of people. Everyone involved was acting in their rational best interest with no oversight or regulation guarding the big picture view and it caused everyone involved to destroy their livelihoods. Other than the ones at the top who's livelihood is/was consolidating profit of course.

The tragedy of the commons isn't about how it's an individual's fault or responsibility. It's about how larger groups need disinterested guardrails for long term higher quality of life.