pc1 [7]
pastures, etc., it is used thus by every individual proprietor as such, and not in his capacity as the representative of the state (as in Rome). It is genuinely the common property of the individual owners, and not of the union of owners, possessing an existence of its own in the city, distinct from that of the individual members. The crucial point here is this: in all these forms, where landed property and agriculture form the basis of the economic order, and consequently the economic object is the production of use values -- i.e., the _reproduction of the individual_ in certain definite relationships to his community, of which it forms the basis -- we find the following elements: 1. Appropriation of the natural conditions of labor, of the _earth_ as the original instrument of labor, both laboratory and repository of its raw materials; however, appropriation not by means of labor, but as the preliminary condition of labor. The individual simply regards the objective conditions of labor as his own, as the inorganic nature of this subjectivity, which realizes itself through them. The chief objective condition of labor itself appears not as the _product_ of labor, but occurs as _nature_. On the one hand, we have the living individual, on the other the earth, as the objective condition of his reproduction. 2. The _attitude_ to the land, to the earth, as the property of the working individual, means that a man appears from the start as something more than the abstraction of the "working individual", but has an _objective mode of existence_ in his ownership of the earth, which is _antecedent_ to his activity and does not appear as its mere consequence, and is as much a precondition of his activity as his skin, his senses, for whole skin and sense organs are also developed, reproduced, etc., in the process of life, they are also presupposed by it. What immediately mediates this attitude is the more or less naturally evolved, more or less historically evolved and modified existence of the individual as _a member of a community_ -- his primitive existence as part of a tribe, etc. An isolated individual could no more possess property in land than he could speak. At most, he could live off it as a source of supply, like the animals. The relation to the soil as property always arises through the peaceful or violent occupation of the land by the tribe of the community in some more or less primitive or already historically developed form. The individual here can never appear in the total isolation of the mere free laborer. If the objective conditions of his labor are presumed to belong to him, he himself is subjectively presumed to belong to a community which mediates his relationship to the objective conditions of labor. Conversely, the real existence of the community is determined by the specific form of its ownership of the objective conditions of labor. The property mediated by its existence in a community may appear as _communal property_, which gives the individual only possession and no private property in the soil; or else it may appear in the dual form of state and private property, which co-exist side by side, but in such a way as to make the former the precondition of the latter, so that only the citizen is and must be a private proprietor, while on the other hand his property qua citizen also has a separate existence. Lastly, communal property may appear as a supplement to private property, which in this case forms the basis; in this case, the community has no existence except in the _assembly_ of its members and in their association for common purposes. These different forms of relationship of communal tribal members to the tribal land -- to the earth upon which it has settled -- depend partly on the natural character [Naturanlagen] of the tribe, partly on the economic conditions in which the tribe really