I got into an argument about guns and my reasoning is guns, cars, and houses can be either personal and private property. For example, someone in a communist militia who owns a gun for the benefit of the militia would be owning that gun personally, while someone who is in a reactionary militia or hordes guns for their value would own those guns privately. Same thing for a house or car. If you own either of those out of necessity it's personal property while if you own either of these things not because you need them then it's private property. I think the intent of ownership is very important, I think a toothbrush could be private property if your hoarding them to sell. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Can we keep the discussion related to guns since that's where this question came up.

  • usurp [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Look I agree with the fact guns have their place and it's in the interest of the left to disarm the right so they can't fight back as easily. But that political power coming out of a gun, what type of property is that gun? Would it be the same type of property depending on the wielder? And if cars are to be phased out eventually, shouldn't also guns?

      • usurp [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I haven't had an account that lasts more than a week. I honestly just like challenging what people know and being contrarian. It's the only way you get what I think is truth out of anybody myself included. That brings me to this hot take, Marx's view on property is wrong, not abolishing private property mind you, just his definition of what property is. A gun in most cases is private property and that contradicts what he said about the workers shall not be disarmed. I might as well bring up the parallel it has to the second amendment.

        I should probably state that the constitution I view it in the same way I view magna carta. Has some good bits but antiquated. The whole a well armed militia thing means to me that citizens should be armed to fight for the government. What Marx says about workers being armed means to me is the same thing but to fight the government, well ruling class. I think he saw it as a means to overthrow the capitalists, not to promote private gun ownership. If this site is gonna be so asinine about meat and cars and houses then it should make up its mind on the gun issue, either the mods should contradict Marx on gun ownership and say guns bad or admit guns are mostly private property and they don't want to abolish that specific kind of property because they think they can fight a war against the ruling class. Really I don't know, I'm just here to read shitposts and make people angry. But I see a contradiction and I'm gonna point it out as much as possible until I'm banned.

        • OgdenTO [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          It seems to me that you are defining property differently from Marx, but using the same terms (private, personal, etc). So calling Marx wrong because youchoose to define arbitrary words differently is an interesting take.

          I'm not saying you're wrong in your definitions, but I think you're misinterpreting Marx.

          I always got that Marx's private property was property designated to use for increasing capital, whereas personal property is that owned by an individual for their private use.

          So I think for your definition a personal gun is personal property in marx, not private.