Deficiencies in the operationalization of Marxism are largely deficiencies in the composition of the vanguard of the proletariat. The solution to this problem is to constitute the vanguard as a “spiritual elite”, a cadre trained in the philosophy of Spinoza and his intellectual descendants: Hegel, Constantin Brunner, Harry Waton and John Macmurray.
This is Leninism. Not Marxism. And was simply a necessity if Lenin wanted to concentrate power in his own hands. Because the Bolsheviks were very much in the minority. The majority was the mensheviks, and they were what we today would define as middle of the road social democrats. As became the norm all over Europe in the 20th century. If the Bolsheviks hadn't seized power USSR would have become a standard European democratic country. And our definition of communism would have been completely different.
We know that Marx was not in favour of a tiny communist vanguard forcing communism upon the people. The communist manifesto was a product from studying the French Revolution closely. Marx was very much aware how the Committee of Public safety and the terror played out. The communist Russian terror following the Russian revolution follows pretty closely the French revolutionary pattern. Marx explicitly didn't want this. It's fair to say that Marx is one of the top French Revolutionary scholars.
But Marx did not have a theory on how this would work. His idea was that
Here's a question: How long must one hold stolen property before it can be considered one's own property, in a moral sense?
Natural rights and natural property rights are not natural. They're made up. Any rule regarding property rights is as good as any other.
Its the law that decides what is considered stealing. If the law says its not stealing, then it isn't.
The western tradition of respecting property rights comes from England and the French and Spanish kings jealously looking at England and how easy it was for the English crown to borrow money from eager Brits. Because the English crown made a thing of always paying back loans they had access to more money, and thus won wars.
That's all.
Or to put it another way, we should respect property rights when it makes sense and ignore them when they don't. I'm a pragmatic. Whatever works is what we should do. I don't care what ideological label we slap onto it
Suppose your father stole my car. You inherit the car and one day I see you park it on the street. I happen to still have the spare key. I get in the car and drive away. Am I a car thief.
This is a different conversation. I am not arguing against property rights. I'm arguing against the idea that they're natural, as if given by a god. Property rights is a result of a social contract, ie culture.
I can imagine a scenario where all wealth is concentrated in a tiny elite and normal people struggle to get by. In that scenario it makes sense to loosen up property rights. We're already doing that. That's what tax financed welfare is.
Nietzsche made a convincing argument that we're only for property rights if we have stuff we don't want stolen. I think that's how it works.
Back in the day it used to be uncontroversial to own slaves. They certainly thought that was the natural way of things. I disagree.
Of to put it differently, do you really think there's no possible scenario where its ok to ignore property rights?
A contract, social or otherwise, is an exchange of goods or services for something of value, between two people who think the exchange is equal. The rest is definitions and terms.
No, its not. The social contract is a concept Rousseau came up with. Its about who should wield power.
Rousseau, being a proto-anarchist, would most certainly disagree with your definition
Here's the key quote from his book, "The Social contract":
"property is legitimate only when protected and regulated by the general will."
This is exactly the ideas that made it into the "Communist Manifesto" and came to define socialism.
I get the impression that you've read too much loony libertarian posts in the Internet. I think your definition starts with the assumption of natural property rights. Don't you?
I'll reiterate, I'm not arguing against property rights. I just care about how these ideas developed over time and what thinker said what. I care about how values develop and change over time.
We have a bad habit of assuming that our ancestors thought exactly like us and had the same values. They most certainly didn't.
When Rousseau wrote that, France was an absolute monarchy and French people only had property as long as the king allowed it. So the only person in France with any property rights, or rights of any kind, was the king. That's the context.
So the question remains, did I steal your car?
The answer is of course, it depends on the cultural context. I think that's the only possible answer.
Twelve Tables - ancient Rome's first codified laws. A lot of those laws are about property issues, and IIRC a lot of later Roman law was also about property issues.
