this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
70 points (88.0% liked)

Communism

1714 readers
160 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Your definition of private property must differ from “a thing that a private individual owns”, then

...But of course it does. I'm intrigued that's what you think it means. Every individual is a private individual - that would make all property private property, even your own toilet paper. That's absurd. That's personal property.

Private property is absentee ownership; property owned for profit. A house owned to rent out, a copper mine, a business. Property that is owned by someone despite others making use of it, and the owners' presence being unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I see. No wonder we were butting heads. I will admit, then, that I had been operating under a misconception, then. Mine's the legal definition, yours is the Marxist one. Given where we are, I suppose that makes more sense to use.

So with this new information, do I understand correctly that your stance is that police only exist to protect private, non-movable property?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Mine's the legal definition, yours is the Marxist one. Given where we are, I suppose that makes more sense to use.

Okay, i respect not raising the tone along with me. I got a bit flustered there but I've had some sleep since then so I can chat mote sanely.

Yes, I've been working under the Marxist definition - I believe it makes more sense. It delineates the class divide we are living within. Those without private property are working class, and those with it are largely capitalist, with some grey area where small business owners are concerned.

Capitalists are able to leverage their assets and wealth to exert untold influence on politics, and have done so across centuries to establish the world we are currently living in.

So with this new information, do I understand correctly that your stance is that police only exist to protect private, non-movable property?

That's their distinct purpose, yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So why do traffic stops exist? Vehicles are personal property, police shouldn't care at all about what happens to or in them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Social control. Y'know, i actually thought we were having a conversation for a second, there... Just like in the original image, I didn't say protecting private property is their only function. And you haven't really pointed out a contradiction - yes, cars are personal property, but traffic stops aren't protecting the car...

Social control is keeping people in line.