Removed by mod
Can an object be either private or personal property?
Removed by modI 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.
Well, feudalism wasnt better, it was just qualitatively different.
(Very broadly and eurocentric.)
West European peasantry were usually not serfs, at least after 1000CE or so. they could in principle leave any time, though in practice finding a place to go could be difficult given most cities had vagrancy laws.
East European Serfs were bonded to the land, but in principle had economic freedom over their own allotment as long as they performed corvee labour on the lords land or provided a tithe.
There were also Yeoman farmers (kulaks) and tenant farmers who owned or rented land respectively and could be quite wealthy. Amd then there are the cities and guilds and proto-capitalism.
But the biggest difference is further up, where the relations of Knight/Lord/King amd their interlinking responsibility get fuzzy and the concept of property diffuses across the ranks. Sometimes this tilted to the Barons, like in France and England before 1500, sometimes to the King like with the Ottomans.
For instance, in principle, a serf could petition the king, saying the local lord was not upkeeping the land and roads and had abdicated his responsibility, and the king could kick him out and appoint another lord, or dissolve the title and rule directly, or split the land and free the serfs, all of these (very) occasionally happened. In practice this usually would cause a barons revolt.
So what's the differences between chattel slavery? Didn't the carribain kill so many slaves through hard labor they had to constantly import more since they didn't expect then to survive and the usa focused on breeding them since they couldn't get any more from Africa because of a ban of some kind? And what about the house and field slaves? That's an example of class. And Europe abolished it before slavery of Africans at least became an industry staple in the motherland at least, the colonies it still happened for a while longer. And the ottomans castrated their slaves, well more than others no?
Yes, but chattel slavery in western Europe was pretty much gone by the time of Colonialism (in fact the raid on Goa rather than 1789 is a pretty decent point to divide feudalism from capitalism as economically dominant modes.)
The initial Caribbean occupation (which itself is tied to the end of the Reconquista preventing primitive accumulation in Europe.) did indeed drive the slavery of Africans (though this was already done in trade ports in West Africa)
House and field slaves seem to be the same class to me, they have the same relationship to production, just different means amd different treatment. Similar difference to a highly paid aerospace engineer vs an exploited labourer.
Ottomans mostly didnt castrate, that was reserved for harem servants and parts of the palace bureaucracy (The Civil Service being enslaved to the monarch goes back to Old Kingdom Egypt).
Also while their slavery was plenty horrible, it again differs with European slavery of early capitalism, being closer to feudal and "slave state" (really more "warrior-class") societies conception of slavery.