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.

  • comi [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I think the issue is thinking with private and personal property, it means something very specific for marxists :)

    Well, that’s interesting thought experiment: can empire exist with just fisty cuffs army/police, intimidating people :) but tool use is so innate, that weapons have existed as long as humans, and certain level of class stratification will always require employed army of thugs to maintain it

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

      Tools of the master can't be used to tear down his house or something. Is a gun not one of the tools? Also let's add public shared property into the mix with personal and private property. Let's challenge the Marxist view of property with all the other views of property. Are people property? If property is something inherent and a social construct would that always apply to humans or can we and by extension objects transcend the concept of being property? What is propertyless?