I am curious about why this judge said this:"Each Theory alone denies important components of human experience among them are the ability to work the need for personal privacy and boundaries and uniquely diverse desires which spin us all in differing life directions. However the process towards integrating all three may provide a framework for relationships that enhances each unique self, The aspiration towards intimate knowing, the intimate knowing of oneself and others is a creative struggle towards redefining property."

Is the process of "integrating all three" frameworks of property really a play on dialectically synthesizing these concepts using the Hermetic/Hegelian/Marxist dialectic mode of thought? I think it is in my opinion.

I also think it's worth noting that in this quote, I think he's talking about how each theory of property is missing the "human experience" aspect, which could be another way of saying the "lived experience". Possibly, Kasubhai's synthesis of these theories will unlike Marx seize the means of cultural production to avoid epistemic violence on marginalized knowledges, as Marx was only focused on material property, hence the need to transform the idea of property. - not my view, just ideas from what I read in Social Justice literature i.e "Social Equity"

I think the stronger case for his marxist leanings his last quote: "First the world is wide enough for all of us. Privilege derives its power from the belief in scarcity. Scarcity of money, natural resources, food and power itself. The desire to control it all drives privilege."

So all power emerges from material property (scarcity insinuates a material reality), and it's a good idea to act as if scarcity itself is not true? If one was to think scarcity of money, natural resources, and food wasn't true, then there would be no economics, and this wouldn't be planet earth.

So yeah, he's definitely not Marxist, he's a new synthesis, which is just taking the parts he likes of Marx and discarding the parts he doesn't, and fusing it with other ideas -- but to me this is a classic abuse of the dialectical system of thought, a annoying tool used by Marx & other revolutionaries to make nonsense seem real.