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.
Well guns can be used to intimidate labor, so I guess they amplify labor power if by power you mean how much product they can output.
Well, they amplify violence power then, not labor. Violence and intimidation is not socially necessary labor as such
I think the original comment meant power as in political power, but you know it can have another meaning. Violence and coercion are tools used to increase production and a gun is one of those tools. A gun can also liberate when in the right hands, and it does that by the threat of killing. But what if the gun was not in the equation at all, what power would anyone have to coerce without a weapon? What authority would anyone have without guns?
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
