Sure, that pretty well matches both my previous understanding from my study of Hegel/Marx and what I’d written above. The slippery part of this is the distinction between “private property” and “personal property”, and exactly what qualifies as which (and who gets to decide), and what happens to my personal property when I find it has become a “means of production”.
I was not expressing lack of understanding regarding words like “class” and “exploitation” when I called them “dubious”. I heartily recommend Hegel’s description of “exploitation” (from Phenomenology of Spirit—the lord and the bondsman) over Marx’s—Marx is basically just Hegel plus bad economics.
At any rate, I’m not particularly interested in hashing out any of this stuff on this forum—I had just found it interesting that there was a notion of property amongst “libertarian socialists” that seems very nearly compatible with the Lockean natural-rights analysis (and that I had not heard previously).
Sure, that pretty well matches both my previous understanding from my study of Hegel/Marx and what I’d written above. The slippery part of this is the distinction between “private property” and “personal property”, and exactly what qualifies as which (and who gets to decide), and what happens to my personal property when I find it has become a “means of production”.
I was not expressing lack of understanding regarding words like “class” and “exploitation” when I called them “dubious”. I heartily recommend Hegel’s description of “exploitation” (from Phenomenology of Spirit—the lord and the bondsman) over Marx’s—Marx is basically just Hegel plus bad economics.
At any rate, I’m not particularly interested in hashing out any of this stuff on this forum—I had just found it interesting that there was a notion of property amongst “libertarian socialists” that seems very nearly compatible with the Lockean natural-rights analysis (and that I had not heard previously).