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.

  • 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.