[halsom]

The line is drawn by relations between people in the extraction process. As anything, it can be complicated but the starting point is very simple: wage labor. In other words, all workers should own, which is to say they should have democratic rights to the management of, the means of production.

[disposekinetics]

I think you made a jump from laborers should own their own labor to laborers should own labor collectively. Democratically control of individual resources appears to be less than ideal.

[halsom]

I am simply saying that personal property is out of the picture. And there is no such thing as “owning labor.” There is only laborers, which under wage labor are owned for a certain amount of time. But my central point is that Marxism has no conflict whatsoever with personal property.

But, as I said, it can be complicated, especially if that is your goal, as can be done with anything if you so please.

But, a self-sufficient farmer with no employees is not even part of a societal economy in any modern sense. They are a mere peasant. If they are a farmer with a farm that requires no hired labor or modern technology then same thing. If they require a military to protect them and they send surplus to a feudal arrangement, they probably live in a feudalist society. If they own their land and use industrial technology and hire their own wage laborers to produce a surplus to trade it on a market to pay for all of that, they are now part of a modern economy and Marxism would have more to say about that. The latter have dependencies beyond the mere protection of their farmland, meaning the farmer now lives in a capitalist society.

[eyelidlessness]

I attempted to bridge the language from a “this appears to be lay usage, introduce a Marxist distinction” perspective. You’re outright using Marxist language and reasoning and doing a much more effective job communicating it. I appreciate your contribution. Thank you for jumping in where I failed.

[halsom]

I think you did a good job!