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.

  • Mardoniush [she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.