You know I’ve had a page of Marx writings on estranged labour and a half written response to it open in my background tabs for weeks now.
Can we clarify as to whether or not the question is asking whether or not Marx views the body as potentially private property, or what Marx viewed to be the relationship between the self and property?
The precise phrasing was:
how does the body fit into ideas of private property (in a marxist sense)?
and, as a bonus, is a conviction of conspiracy to murder just a conviction of though crime?
The second part is much simpler to answer in my opinion. What I’d argue it comes down to is whether or not the murder was actually committed or attempted. A person who plays a part in an actual murder attempt has responsibility for the part they played in it, if the attempt never happens and is called off then their role in the conspiracy becomes negligible. Otherwise we may as well lock up everybody who says “I’ll kill you!” in a fit of rage. The distinction between thought crime, in this sense, and actual crime comes down to it’s actualisation.
As for the body and private property, if the question was in the first sense (can the body be viewed as private property) then the answer is much simpler. The body simply is, it’s the area that the self occupies and through which experiences existence. Private property, in a Marxist sense, means something which is owned and used to exploit others. You do not own your body, you simply are your body. ”Selling” your body (for example modelling, acting, prostitution) is selling your labour just as in any other trade. You are alienated from your labour because the social relations make it an act done for money and not a fulfilment of the self, but your body cannot become private property in the act.
I’ll do some reading now and answer the question as if it’s the relationship between the body and private property promptly.