Butthepossibilityitselfisconditionedbysubjectiveandobjectivenaturalcircumstances。Andheretooliesnothingatallmysterious。Shouldlabour-powerbeminute，andthenaturalconditionsoflabourscanty，thenthesurplus-labourissmall，butinsuchacasesoarethewantsoftheproducersontheonehandandtherelativenumberofexploitersofsurplus-labourontheother，andfinallysoisthesurplus-product，wherebythisbarelyproductivesurplus-labourisrealisedforthosefewexploitinglandowners。
Finally，labourrentinitselfimpliesthat，allothercircumstancesremainingequal，itwilldependwhollyupontherelativeamountofsurplus-labour，orenforcedlabour，towhatextentthedirectproducershallbeenabledtoimprovehisowncondition，toacquirewealth，toproduceanexcessoverandabovehisindispensablemeansofsubsistence，or，ifwewishtoanticipatethecapitalistmodeofexpression，whetherheshallbeabletoproduceaprofitforhimself，andhowmuchofaprofit，i。e。，anexcessoverhiswageswhichhavebeenproducedbyhimself。Renthereisthenormal，all-absorbing，sotosaylegitimateformofsurplus-labour，andfarfrombeingexcessoverprofit，whichmeansinthiscasebeingaboveanyotherexcessoverwages，itisratherthattheamountofsuchprofit，andevenitsveryexistence，depends，othercircumstancesbeingequal，upontheamountofrent，i。e。，theenforcedsurplus-labourtobesurrenderedtothelandowners。
Sincethedirectproducerisnottheowner，butonlyapossessor，andsinceallhissurplus-labourdejureactuallybelongstothelandlord，somehistorianshaveexpressedastonishmentthatitshouldheatallpossibleforthosesubjecttoenforcedlabour，orserfs，toacquireanyindependentproperty，orrelativelyspeaking，wealth，undersuchcircumstances。However，itisevidentthattraditionmustplayadominantroleintheprimitiveandundevelopedcircumstancesonwhichthesesocialproductionrelationsandthecorrespondingmodeofproductionarebased。Itisfurthermoreclearthathereasalwaysitisintheinterestoftherulingsectionofsocietytosanctiontheexistingorderaslawandtolegallyestablishitslimitsgiventhroughusageandtradition。Apartfromallelse，this，bytheway，comesaboutofitselfassoonastheconstantreproductionofthebasisoftheexistingorderanditsfundamentalrelationsassumesaregulatedandorderlyforminthecourseoftime。Andsuchregulationandorderarethemselvesindispensableelementsofanymodeofproduction，ifitistoassumesocialstabilityandindependencefrommerechanceandarbitrariness。
Thesearepreciselytheformofitssocialstabilityandthereforeitsrelativefreedomfrommerearbitrarinessandmerechance。Underbackwardconditionsoftheproductionprocessaswellasthecorrespondingsocialrelations，itachievesthisformbymererepetitionoftheirveryreproduction。
Ifthishascontinuedonforsometime，itentrenchesitselfascustomandtraditionandisfinallysanctionedasanexplicitlaw。However，sincetheformofthissurplus-labour，enforcedlabour，isbasedupontheimperfectdevelopmentofallsocialproductivepowersandthecrudenessofthemethodsoflabouritself，itwillnaturallyabsorbarelativelymuchsmallerportionofthedirectproducer抯totallabourthanunderdevelopedmodesofproduction，particularlythecapitalistmodeofproduction。Takeit，forinstance，thattheenforcedlabourforthelandlordoriginallyamountedtotwodaysperweek。Thesetwodaysofenforcedlabourperweekaretherebyfixed，areaconstantmagnitude，legallyregulatedbyprescriptiveorwrittenlaw。Buttheproductivityoftheremainingdaysoftheweek，whichareatthedisposalofthedirectproducerhimself，isavariablemagnitude，whichmustdevelopinthecourseofhisexperience，justasthenewwantsheacquires，andjustastheexpansionofthemarketforhisproductandtheincreasingassurancewithwhichhedisposesofthisportionofhislabour-powerwillspurhimontoagreaterexertionofhislabour-power，wherebyitshouldnotbeforgottenthattheemploymentofhislabour-powerisbynomeansconfinedtoagriculture，butincludesruralhomeindustry。
Thepossibilityisherepresentedfordefiniteeconomicdevelopmenttakingplace，depending，ofcourse，uponfavourablecircumstances，inbornracialcharacteristics，etc。
III。RENTINKIND
Thetransformationoflabourrentintorentinkindchangesnothingfromtheeconomicstandpointinthenatureofground-rent。Thelatterconsists，intheformsconsideredhere，inthatrentisthesoleprevailingandnormalformofsurplus-value，orsurplus-labour。Thisisfurtherexpressedinthefactthatitistheonlysurplus-labour，ortheonlysurplus-product，whichthedirectproducer，whoisinpossessionofthelabourconditionsneededforhisownreproduction，mustgiveuptotheowneroftheland，whichinthissituationistheall-embracingconditionoflabour。
And，furthermore，thatlandistheonlyconditionoflabourwhichconfrontsthedirectproducerasalienproperty，independentofhim，andpersonifiedbythelandlord。Towhateverextentrentinkindistheprevailinganddominantformofground-rent，itisfurther-morealwaysmoreorlessaccompaniedbysurvivalsoftheearlierform，i。e。，ofrentpaiddirectlyinlabour，corvé；e-labour，nomatterwhetherthelandlordbeaprivatepersonorthestate。Rentinkindpresupposesahigherstageofcivilisationforthedirectproducer，i。e。，ahigherlevelofdevelopmentofhislabourandofsocietyingeneral。Anditisdistinctfromtheprecedingforminthatsurplus-labourneedsnolongerbeperformedinitsnaturalform，thusnolongerunderthedirectsupervisionandcompulsionofthelandlordorhisrepresentatives:thedirectproducerisdrivenratherbyforceofcircumstancesthanbydirectcoercion，throughlegalenactmentratherthanthewhip，toperformitonhisownresponsibility。Surplus-production，inthesenseofproductionbeyondtheindispensableneedsofthedirectproducer，andwithinthefieldofproductionactuallybelongingtohim，uponthelandexploitedbyhimselfinsteadof，asearlier，uponthenearbylord抯estatebeyondhisownland，hasalreadybecomeaself-understoodrulehere。Inthisrelationthedirectproducermoreorlessdisposesofhisentirelabour-time，although，aspreviously，apartofthislabour-time，atfirstpracticallytheentiresurplusportionofit，belongstothelandlordwithoutcompensation；exceptthatthelandlordnolongerdirectlyreceivesthissurplus-labourinitsnaturalform，butratherintheproducts？naturalforminwhichitisrealised。Theburdensome，andaccordingtothewayinwhichenforcedlabourisregulated，moreorlessdisturbinginterruptionbyworkforthelandlordseeBuchI，Kap。VIII，2[EnglisheditionChX，2——Ed]”ManufacturerandBoyard”stopswhereverrentinkindappearsinpureform，oratleastitisreducedtoafewshortintervalsduringtheyear，whenacontinuationofsomecorvé；e-laboursidebysidewithrentinkindtakesplace。Thelabouroftheproducerforhimselfandhislabourforthelandlordarenolongerpalpablyseparatedbytimeandspace。Thisrentinkind，initspureform，whileitmaydragfragmentsalongintomorehighlydevelopedmodesofproductionandproductionrelations，stillpresupposesforitsexistenceanaturaleconomy，i。e。，thattheconditionsoftheeconomyareeitherwhollyorfortheoverwhelmingpartproducedbytheeconomyitself，directlyreplacedandreproducedoutofitsgrossproduct。Itfurthermorepresupposesthecombinationofruralhomeindustrywithagriculture。Thesurplus-product，whichformstherent，istheproductofthiscombinedagriculturalandindustrialfamilylabour，nomatterwhetherrentinkindcontainsmoreorlessoftheindustrialproduct，asisoftenthecaseintheMiddleAges，orwhetheritispaidonlyintheformofactualproductsoftheland。Inthisformofrentitisbynomeansnecessaryforrentinkind，whichrepresentsthesurplus-labour，tofullyexhausttheentiresurplus-labouroftheruralfamily。Comparedwithlabourrent，theproducerratherhasmoreroomforactiontogaintimeforsurplus-labourwhoseproductshallbelongtohimself，aswellastheproductofhislabourwhichsatisfieshisindispensableneeds。Similarly，thisformwillgiverisetogreaterdifferencesintheeconomicpositionoftheindividualdirectproducers。Atleastthepossibilityforsuchadifferentiationexists，andthepossibilityforthedirectproducertohaveinturnacquiredthemeanstoexploitotherlabourersdirectly。This，however，doesnotconcernushere，sincewearedealingwithrentinkindinitspureform；justasingeneralwecannotenterintotheendlessvarietyofcombinationswhereinthevariousformsofrentmaybeunited，adulteratedandamalgamated。Theformofrentinkind，bybeingboundtoadefinitetypeofproductandproductionitselfandthroughitsindispensablecombinationofagricultureanddomesticindustry，throughitsalmostcompleteself-sufficiencywherebythepeasantfamilysupportsitselfthroughitsindependencefromthemarketandthemovementofproductionandhistoryofthatsectionofsocietylyingoutsideofitssphere，inshortowingtothecharacterofnaturaleconomyingeneral，thisformisquiteadaptedtofurnishingthebasisforstationarysocialconditionsaswesee，e。g。，inAsia。
Here，asintheearlierformoflabourrent，ground-rentisthenormalformofsurplus-value，andthusofsurplus-labour，i。e。，oftheentireexcesslabourwhichthedirectproducermustperformgratis，henceactuallyundercompulsionalthoughthiscompulsionnolongerconfrontshimintheoldbrutalform——forthebenefitoftheownerofhisessentialconditionoflabour，theland。Theprofit，ifbyerroneouslyanticipatingwemaythuscallthatportionofthedirectproducer抯labourexcessoverhisnecessarylabour，whichheretainsforhimself，hassolittletodowithdeterminingrentinkind，thatthisprofit，onthecontrary，growsupbehindthebackofrentandfindsitsnaturallimitinthesizeofrentinkind。Thelattermayassumedimensionswhichseriouslyimperilreproductionoftheconditionsoflabour，themeansofproductionthemselves，renderingtheexpansionofproductionmoreorlessimpossibleandreducingthedirectproducerstothephysicalminimumofmeansofsubsistence。Thisisparticularlythecase，whenthisformismetwithandexploitedbyaconqueringcommercialnation，e。g。，theEnglishinIndia。
IV。MONEY-RENT
Bymoney-rent——asdistinctfromindustrialandcommercialground-rentbaseduponthecapitalistmodeofproduction，whichisbutanexcessoveraverageprofit——weheremeantheground-rentwhicharisesfromamerechangeinformofrentinkind，justasthelatterinturnisbutamodificationoflabourrent。Thedirectproducerhereturnsoverinsteadoftheproduct，itspricetothelandlordwhomaybeeitherthestateoraprivateindividual。
Anexcessofproductsintheirnaturalformnolongersuffices；itmustbeconvertedfromitsnaturalformintomoney-form。Althoughthedirectproducerstillcontinuestoproduceatleastthegreaterpartofhismeansofsubsistencehimself，acertainportionofthisproductmustnowbeconvertedintocommodities，mustbeproducedascommodities。Thecharacteroftheentiremodeofproductionisthusmoreorlesschanged。Itlosesitsindependence，itsdetachmentfromsocialconnection。Theratioofcostofproduction，whichnowcomprisesgreaterorlesserexpendituresofmoney，becomesdecisive；
atanyrate，theexcessofthatportionofgrossproducttobeconvertedintomoneyoverthatportionwhichmustserve，ontheonehand，asmeansofreproductionagain，and，ontheother，asmeansofdirectsubsistence，assumesadeterminingrole。However，thebasisofthistypeofrent，althoughapproachingitsdissolution，remainsthesameasthatofrentinkind，whichconstitutesitspointofdeparture。Thedirectproducerasbeforeisstillpossessorofthelandeitherthroughinheritanceorsomeothertraditionalright，andmustperformforhislord，asownerofhismostessentialconditionofproduction，excesscorvé；e-labour，thatis，unpaidlabourforwhichnoequivalentisreturned，intheformofasurplus-producttransformedintomoney。Ownershipoftheconditionsoflabourasdistinctfromland，suchasagriculturalimplementsandothergoodsandchattels，istransformedintothepropertyofthedirectproducerevenundertheearlierformsofrent，firstinfact，andthenalsolegally，andevenmoresoisthisthepreconditionfortheformofmoney-rent。Thetransformationofrentinkindintomoney-rent，takingplacefirstsporadicallyandthenonamoreorlessnationalscale，presupposesaconsiderabledevelopmentofcommerce，ofurbanindustry，ofcommodity-productioningeneral，andtherebyofmoneycirculation。Itfurthermoreassumesamarket-priceforproducts，andthattheybesoldatpricesroughlyapproximatingtheirvalues，whichneednotatallbethecaseunderearlierforms。InEasternEuropewemaystillpartlyobservethistransformationtakingplacetinderourveryeyes。HowunfeasibleitcanbewithoutacertaindevelopmentofsociallabourproductivityisprovedbyvariousunsuccessfulattemptstocarryitthroughundertheRomanEmpire，andbyrelapsesintorentinkindafterseekingtoconvertatleastthestatetaxportionofthisrentintomoney-rent。
Thesametransitionaldifficultiesareevidenced，e。g。，inpre-revolutionaryFrance，whenmoney-rentwascombinedwithandadulteratedby，survivalsofitsearlierforms。
Money-rent，asatransmutedformofrentinkind，andinantithesistoit，is，nevertheless，thefinalform，andsimultaneouslytheformofdissolutionofthetypeofground-rentwhichwehaveheretoforeconsidered，namelyground-rentasthenormalformofsurplus-valueandoftheunpaidsurplus-labourtobeperformedfortheowneroftheconditionsofproduction。
Initspureform，thisrent，likelabourrentandrentinkind，representsnoexcessoverprofit。Itabsorbstheprofit，asitisunderstood。Insofarasprofitarisesbesideitpracticallyasaseparateportionofexcesslabour，money-rentlikerentinitsearlierformsstillconstitutesthenormallimitofsuchembryonicprofit，whichcanonlydevelopinrelationtothepossibilitiesofexploitation，beitofone抯ownexcesslabourorthatofanother，whichremainsaftertheperformanceofthesurplus-labourrepresentedbymoney-rent。Shouldanyprofitactuallyarisealongwiththisrent，thenthisprofitdoesnotconstitutethelimitofrent，butratherconversely，therentisthelimitoftheprofit。However，asalreadyindicated，money-rentissimultaneouslytheformofdissolutionoftheground-rentconsideredthusfar，coincidingprimafaciewithsurplus-valueandsurplus-labour，i。e。，ground-rentasthenormalanddominantformofsurplus-value。
Initsfurtherdevelopmentmoney-rentmustlead——asidefromallintermediateforms，e。g。，thesmallpeasanttenantfarmer——eithertothetransformationoflandintopeasants？freehold，ortotheformcorrespondingtothecapitalistmodeofproduction，thatis，torentpaidbythecapitalisttenantfarmer。
Withmoney-rentprevailing，thetraditionalandcustomarylegalrelationshipbetweenlandlordandsubjectswhopossessandcultivateapartoftheland，isnecessarilyturnedintoapuremoneyrelationshipfixedcontractuallyinaccordancewiththerulesofpositivelaw。Thepossessorengagedincultivationthusbecomesvirtuallyameretenant。Thistransformationservesontheonehand，providedothergeneralproductionrelationspermit，toexpropriatemoreandmoretheoldpeasantpossessorsandtosubstitutecapitalisttenantsintheirstead。Ontheotherhand，itleadstotheformerpossessorbuyinghimselffreefromhisrentobligationandtohistransformationintoanindependentpeasantwithcompleteownershipofthelandhetills。
Thetransformationofrentinkindintomoney-rentisfurthermorenotonlyinevitablyaccompanied，butevenanticipated，bytheformationofaclassofproperty-lessday-labourers，whohirethemselvesoutformoney。Duringtheirgenesis，whenthisnewclassappearsbutsporadically，thecustomnecessarilydevelopsamongthemoreprosperouspeasantssubjecttorentpaymentsofexploitingagriculturalwage-labourersfortheirownaccount，muchasinfeudaltimes，whenthemorewell-to-dopeasantserfsthemselvesalsoheldserfs。Inthisway，theygraduallyacquirethepossibilityofaccumulatingacertainamountofwealthandthemselvesbecomingtransformedintofuturecapitalists。Theoldself-employedpossessorsoflandthemselvesthusgiverisetoanurseryschoolforcapitalisttenants，whosedevelopmentisconditionedbythegeneraldevelopmentofcapitalistproductionbeyondtheboundsofthecountry-side。Thisclassshootsupveryrapidlywhenparticularlyfavourablecircumstancescometoitsaid，asinEnglandinthe16thcentury，wherethethenprogressivedepreciationofmoneyenrichedthemunderthecustomarylongleasesattheexpenseofthelandlords。
Furthermore:assoonasrentassumestheformofmoney-rent，andtherebytherelationshipbetweenrent-payingpeasantandlandlordbecomesarelationshipfixedbycontract——adevelopmentwhichisonlypossiblegenerallywhentheworld-market，commerceandmanufacturehavereachedacertainrelativelyhighlevel——theleasingoflandtocapitalistsinevitablyalsomakesitsappearance。Thelatterhithertostoodbeyondtherurallimitsandnowcarryovertothecountrysideandagriculturethecapitalacquiredinthecitiesandwithitthecapitalistmodeofoperationdeveloped——i。e。，creatingaproductasamerecommodityandsolelyasameansofappropriatingsurplus-value。Thisformcanbecomethegeneralruleonlyinthosecountrieswhichdominatetheworld-marketintheperiodoftransitionfromthefeudaltothecapitalistmodeofproduction。Whenthecapitalisttenantfarmerstepsinbetweenlandlordandactualtillerofthesoil，allrelationswhicharoseoutoftheoldruralmodeofproductionaretornasunder。Thefarmerbecomestheactualcommanderoftheseagriculturallabourersandtheactualexploiteroftheirsurplus-labour，whereasthelandlordmaintainsadirectrelationship，andindeedsimplyamoneyandcontractualrelationship，solelywiththiscapitalisttenant。Thus，thenatureofrentisalsotransformed，notmerelyinfactandbychance，asoccurredinpartevenunderearlierforms，butnormally，initsrecognisedandprevailingform。Fromthenormalformofsurplus-valueandsurplus-labour，itdescendstoamereexcessofthissurplus-labouroverthatportionofitappropriatedbytheexploitingcapitalistintheformofprofit；justasthetotalsurplus-labour，profitandexcessoverprofit，isextracteddirectlybyhim，collectedintheformofthetotalsurplus-product，andturnedintocash。Itisonlytheexcessportionofthissurplus-valuewhichisextractedbyhimfromtheagriculturallabourerbydirectexploitation，bymeansofhiscapital，whichheturnsovertothelandlordasrent。Howmuchorhowlittleheturnsovertothelatterdepends，ontheaverage，uponthelimitssetbytheaverageprofitwhichisrealisedbycapitalinthenon-agriculturalspheresofproduction，andbythepricesofnon-agriculturalproductionregulatedbythisaverageprofit。Fromanormalformofsurplus-valueandsurplus-labour，renthasnowbecometransformedintoanexcessoverthatportionofthesurplus-labourclaimedinadvancebycapitalasitslegitimateandnormalshare，andcharacteristicofthisparticularsphereofproduction，theagriculturalsphereofproduction。Profit，insteadofrent，hasnowbecomethenormalformofsurplus-valueandrentstillexistssolelyasaform，notofsurplus-valueingeneral，butofoneofitsoffshoots，surplus-profit，whichassumesanindependentformunderparticularcircumstances。Itisnotnecessarytoelaboratethemannerinwhichagradualtransformationinthemodeofproductionitselfcorrespondstothistransformation。Thisalreadyfollowsfromthefactthatitisnormalforthecapitalisttenantfarmertoproduceagriculturalproductsascommodities，andthat，whileformerlyonlytheexcessoverhismeansofsubsistencewasconvertedintocommodities，nowbutarelativelyinsignificantpartofthesecommoditiesisdirectlyusedbyhimasmeansofsubsistence。Itisnolongertheland，butrathercapital，whichhasnowbroughtevenagriculturallabourunderitsdirectswayandproductiveness。
Theaverageprofitandthepriceofproductionregulatedtherebyareformedoutsideofrelationsinthecountry-sideandwithinthesphereofurbantradeandmanufacture。Theprofitoftherent-payingpeasantdoesnotenterintoitasanequalisingfactor，forhisrelationtothelandlordisnotacapitalistone。Insofarashemakesprofit，i。e。，realisesanexcessabovehisnecessarymeansofsubsistence，eitherbyhisownlabourorthroughexploitingotherpeople抯labour，itisdonebehindthebackofthenormalrelationship，andothercircumstancesbeingequal，thesizeofthisprofitdoesnotdeterminerent，butonthecontrary，itisdeterminedbytherentasitslimit。ThehighrateofprofitintheMiddleAgesisnotentirelyduetothelowcompositionofcapital，inwhichthevariablecomponentinvestedinwagespredominates。Itisduetoswindlingontheland，theappropriationofaportionofthelandlord抯rentandoftheincomeofhisvassals。Ifthecountry-sideexploitsthetownpoliticallyintheMiddleAges，whereverfeudalismhasnotbeenbrokendownbyexceptionalurbandevelopment——asinItaly，thetown，ontheotherhand，exploitsthelandeconomicallyeverywhereandwithoutexception，throughitsmonopolyprices，itssystemoftaxation，itsguildorganisation，itsdirectcommercialfraudulenceanditsusury。
Onemightimaginethatthemereappearanceofthecapitalistfarmerinagriculturalproductionwouldprovethatthepriceofagriculturalproducts，whichfromtimeimmemorialhavepaidrentinoneformoranother，mustbehigher，atleastatthetimeofthisappearance，thanthepricesofproductionofmanufacturewhetheritbebecausethepriceofsuchagriculturalproductshasreachedamonopolypricelevel，orhasrisenashighasthevalueoftheagriculturalproducts，andtheirvalueactuallyisabovethepriceofproductionregulatedbytheaverageprofit。Forwerethisnotso，thecapitalistfarmercouldnotatallrealise，attheexistingpricesofagriculturalproduce，firsttheaverageprofitoutofthepriceoftheseproducts，andthenpayoutofthesamepriceanexcessabovethisprofitintheformofrent。Onemightconcludefromthisthatthegeneralrateofprofit，whichguidesthecapitalistfarmerinhiscontractwiththelandlord，hasbeenformedwithoutincludingrent，and，therefore，assoonasitassumesaregulatingroleinagriculturalproduction，itfindsthisexcessathandandpaysittothelandlord。Itisinthistraditionalmannerthat，forinstance，HerrRodbertusexplainsthematter。[J。Rodbertus，SocialeBriefeanvonKirchmann，DritterBrief:WiderlegungderRicardo抯chenLehrevonderGrundrenteundBegü；ndungeinerneuenRententheorie。SeealsoK。Marx，Theorienü；berdenMehrwert。2。Teil，1957，pp。3-106，142-54——Ed。]But:
First。Thisappearanceofcapitalasanindependentandleadingforceinagriculturedoesnottakeplaceallatonceandgenerally，butgraduallyandinparticularlinesofproductionItencompassesatfirst，notagricultureproper，butsuchbranchesofproductionascattle-breeding，especiallysheep-raising，whoseprincipalproduct，wool，offersattheearlystagesaconstantexcessofmarket-priceoverpriceofproductionduringtheriseofindustry，andthisdoesnotleveloutuntillater。ThusinEnglandduringthe16thcentury。
Secondly。Sincethiscapitalistproductionappearsatfirstbutsporadically，theassumptioncannotbedisputedthatitfirstextendsonlytosuchlandcategoriesasareable，throughtheirparticularfertility，ortheirexceptionallyfavourablelocation，togenerallypayadifferentialrent。
Thirdly。Letusevenassumethatatthetimethismodeofproductionappeared——andthisindeedpresupposesanincreasingpreponderanceofurbandemand——thepricesofagriculturalproductswerehigherthanthepriceofproduction，aswasdoubtlessthecaseinEnglandduringthelastthirdofthe17thcentury。Nevertheless，assoonasthismodeofproductionhassomewhatextricateditselffromthemeresubordinationofagriculturetocapital，andassoonasagriculturalimprovementandthereductionofproductioncosts，whichnecessarilyaccompanyitsdevelopment，havetakenplace，thebalancewillberestoredbyareaction，afallinthepriceofagriculturalproduce，ashappenedinEnglandinthefirsthalfofthe18thcentury。
Rent，thus，asanexcessovertheaverageprofitcannotbeexplainedinthistraditionalway。Whatevermaybetheexistinghistoricalcircumstancesatthetimerentfirstappears，onceithasstruckrootitcannotexistexceptunderthemodernconditionsearlierdescribed。
Finally，itshouldbenotedinthetransformationofrentinkindintomoney-rentthatalongwithitcapitalisedrent，orthepriceofland，andthusitsalienabilityandalienationbecomeessentialfactors，andthattherebynotonlycantheformerpeasantsubjecttopaymentofrentbetransformedintoanindependentpeasantproprietor，butalsourbanandothermoneyedpeoplecanbuyrealestateinordertoleaseiteithertopeasantsorcapitalistsandthusenjoyrentasaformofinterestontheircapitalsoinvested；
that，therefore，thiscircumstancelikewisefacilitatesthetransformationoftheformermodeofexploitation，therelationbetweenownerandactualcultivatoroftheland，andofrentitself。
V。METAYAGEANDPEASANTPROPRIETORSHIPOFLANDPARCELS
Wehavenowarrivedattheendofourelaborationofground-rent。
Inalltheseformsofground-rent，whetherlabourrent，rentinkind，ormoney-rentasmerelyachangedformofrentinkind，theonepayingrentisalwayssupposedtobetheactualcultivatorandpossessoroftheland，whoseunpaidsurplus-labourpassesdirectlyintothehandsofthelandlord。Eveninthelastform，money-rentinsofarasitis”pure，”i。e。，merelyachangedformofrentinkind——thisisnotonlypossible，butactuallytakesplace。
Asatransitoryformfromtheoriginalformofrenttocapitalistrent，wemayconsiderthemetayersystem，orshare-cropping，underwhichthemanagerfarmerfurnisheslabourhisownoranother抯，andalsoaportionofworkingcapital，andthelandlordfurnishes，asidefromland，anotherportionofworkingcapitale。g。，cattle，andtheproductisdividedbetweentenantandlandlordindefiniteproportionswhichvaryfromcountrytocountry。Ontheonehand，thefarmerherelackssufficientcapitalrequiredforcompletecapitalistmanagement。Ontheotherhand，thesharehereappropriatedbythelandlorddoesnotbearthepureformofrent。Itmayactuallyincludeinterestonthecapitaladvancedbyhimandanexcessrent。Itmayalsoabsorbpracticallytheentiresurplus-labourofthefarmer，orleavehimagreaterorsmallerportionofthissurplus-labour。But，essentially，rentnolongerappearshereasthenormalformofsurplus-valueingeneral。
Ontheonehand，thesharecropper，whetherheemployshisownoranother抯
labour，istolayclaimtoaportionoftheproductnotinhiscapacityaslabourer，butaspossessorofpartoftheinstrumentsoflabour，ashisowncapitalist。Ontheotherhand，thelandlordclaimshissharenotexclusivelyonthebasisofhisland-ownership，butalsoaslenderofcapital。[44a]
Asurvivaloftheoldcommunalownershipofland，whichhadenduredafterthetransitiontoindependentpeasantfarming，e。g。，inPolandandRumania，servedthereasasubterfugeforeffectingatransitiontothelowerformsofground-rent。Aportionofthelandbelongstotheindividualpeasantandistilledindependentlybyhim。Anotherportionistilledincommonandcreatesasurplus-product，whichservespartlytocovercommunityexpenses，partlyasareserveincasesofcropfailure，etc。Theselasttwopartsofthesurplus-product，andultimatelytheentiresurplus-productincludingthelanduponwhichithasbeengrown，aremoreandmoreusurpedbystateofficialsandprivateindividuals，andthustheoriginallyfreepeasantproprietors，whoseobligationtotillthislandincommonismaintained，aretransformedintovassalssubjecteithertocorvé；e-labourorrentinkind；whiletheusurpersofcommonlandaretransformedintoowners，notonlyoftheusurpedcommonlands，buteventheverylandsofthepeasantsthemselves。
Weneednotfurtherinvestigateslaveeconomyproperwhichlikewisepassesthroughametamorphosisfromthepatriarchalsystemmainlyforhomeusetotheplantationsystemfortheworld-marketnorthemanagementofestatesunderwhichthelandlordsthemselvesareindependentcultivators，possessingallinstrumentsofproduction，andexploitingthelabouroffreeorunfreebondsmen，whoarepaideitherinkindormoney。Landlordandowneroftheinstrumentsofproduction，andthusthedirectexploiteroflabourersincludedamongtheseelementsofproduction，areinthiscaseoneandthesameperson。Rentandprofitlikewisecoincidethen，thereoccurringnoseparationofthedifferentformsofsurplus-value。Theentiresurplus-labourofthelabourers，whichismanifestedhereinthesurplus-product，isextractedfromthemdirectlybytheownerofallinstrumentsofproduction，towhichbelongthelandand，undertheoriginalformofslavery，theimmediateproducersthemselves。Wherethecapitalistoutlookprevails，asonAmericanplantations，thisentiresurplus-valueisregardedasprofit；whereneitherthecapitalistmodeofproductionitselfexists，northecorrespondingoutlookhasbeentransferredfromcapitalistcountries，itappearsasrent。
Atanyrate，thisformpresentsnodifficulties。Theincomeofthelandlord，whateveritmaybecalled，theavailablesurplus-productappropriatedbyhim，isherethenormalandprevailingform，wherebytheentireunpaidsurplus-labourisdirectlyappropriated，andlandedpropertyformsthebasisofsuchappropriation。
Further，proprietorshipoflandparcels。Thepeasanthereissimultaneouslythefreeownerofhisland，whichappearsashisprincipalinstrumentofproduction，theindispensablefieldofemploymentforhislabourandhiscapital。Noleasemoneyispaidunderthisform。Rent，therefore，doesnotappearasaseparateformofsurplus-value，althoughincountriesinwhichotherwisethecapitalistmodeofproductionisdeveloped，itappearsasasurplus-profitcomparedwithotherlinesofproduction；butassurplus-profitwhich，likeallproceedsofhislabouringeneral，accruestothepeasant。
Thisformoflandedpropertypresupposes，asintheearlierolderforms，thattheruralpopulationgreatlypredominatesnumericallyoverthetownpopulation，sothat，evenifthecapitalistmodeofproductionotherwiseprevails，itisbutrelativelylittledeveloped，andthusalsointheotherlinesofproductiontheconcentrationofcapitalisrestrictedtonarrowlimitsandafragmentationofcapitalpredominates。Inthenatureofthings，thegreaterportionofagriculturalproducemustbeconsumedasdirectmeansofsubsistencebytheproducersthemselves，thepeasants，andonlytheexcessabovethatwillfinditswayascommoditiesintourbancommerce。
Nomatterhowtheaveragemarket-priceofagriculturalproductsmayhereberegulated，differentialrent，anexcessportionofcommodity-pricesfromsuperiorormorefavourablylocatedland，mustevidentlyexistheremuchasunderthecapitalistmodeofproduction。Thisdifferentialrentexists，evenwherethisformappearsundersocialconditions，underwhichnogeneralmarket-pricehasasyetbeendeveloped；itappearsthenintheexcesssurplus-product。Onlythenitflowsintothepocketsofthepeasantwhoselabourisrealisedundermorefavourablenaturalconditions。Theassumptionhereisgenerallytobemadethatnoabsoluterentexists，i。e。，thattheworstsoildoesnotpayanyrent——preciselyunderthisformwherethepriceoflandentersasafactorinthepeasant抯actualcostofproductionwhetherbecauseinthecourseofthisform抯furtherdevelopmenteitherthepriceoflandhasbeencomputedatacertainmoney-value，individingupaninheritance，or，duringtheconstantchangeinownershipofanentireestate，orofitscomponentparts，thelandhasbeenboughtbythecultivatorhimself，largelybyraisingmoneyonmortgage；and，therefore，wherethepriceofland，representingnothingmorethancapitalisedrent，isafactorassumedinadvance，andwhererentthusseemstoexistindependentlyofanydifferentiationinfertilityandlocationoftheland。For，absoluterentpresupposeseitherrealisedexcessinproductvalueaboveitspriceofproduction，oramonopolypriceexceedingthevalueoftheproduct。
Butsinceagriculturehereiscarriedonlargelyascultivationfordirectsubsistence，andthelandexistsasanindispensablefieldofemploymentforthelabourandcapitalofthemajorityofthepopulation，theregulatingmarket-priceoftheproductwillreachitsvalueonlyunderextraordinarycircumstances。Butthisvaluewill，generally，behigherthanitspriceofproductionowingtothepreponderantelementoflivinglabour，althoughthisexcessofvalueoverpriceofproductionwillinturnbelimitedbythelowcompositionevenofnon-agriculturalcapitalincountrieswithaneconomycomposedpredominantlyoflandparcels。Forthepeasantowningaparcel，thelimitofexploitationisnotsetbytheaverageprofitofcapital，insofarasheisasmallcapitalist；nor，ontheotherhand，bythenecessityofrent，insofarasheisalandowner。Theabsolutelimitforhimasasmallcapitalistisnomorethanthewageshepaystohimself，afterdeductinghisactualcosts。Solongasthepriceoftheproductcoversthesewages，hewillcultivatehisland，andoftenatwagesdowntoaphysicalminimum。Asforhiscapacityaslandproprietor，thebarrierofownershipiseliminatedforhim，sinceitcanmakeitselffeltonlyvis-à；-visacapitalincludinglabourseparatedfromland-ownership，byerectinganobstacletotheinvestmentofcapital。Itistrue，tobesure，thatinterestonthepriceofland——whichgenerallyhastobepaidtostillanotherindividual，themortgagecreditor——isabarrier。Butthisinterestcanbepaidpreciselyoutofthatportionofsurplus-labourwhichwouldconstituteprofitundercapitalistconditions。
Therentanticipatedinthepriceoflandandintheinterestpaidforitcanthereforebenothingbutaportionofthepeasant抯capitalisedsurplus-labouroverandabovethelabourindispensableforhissubsistence，withoutthissurplus-labourbeingrealisedinapartofthecommodity-valueequaltotheentireaverageprofit，andstilllessinanexcessabovethesurplus-labourrealisedintheaverageprofit，i。e。，inasurplus-profit。
Therentmaybeadeductionfromtheaverageprofit，oreventheonlyportionofitwhichisrealised。Forthepeasantparcelholdertocultivatehisland，ortobuylandforcultivation，itisthereforenotnecessary，asunderthenormalcapitalistmodeofproduction，thatthemarket-priceoftheagriculturalproductsrisehighenoughtoaffordhimtheaverageprofit，andstilllessafixedexcessabovethisaverageprofitintheformofrent。Itisnotnecessary，therefore，thatthemarket-pricerise，eitheruptothevalueorthepriceofproductionofhisproduct。Thisisoneofthereasonswhygrainpricesarelowerincountrieswithpredominantsmallpeasantlandproprietorshipthanincountrieswithacapitalistmodeofproduction。Oneportionofthesurplus-labourofthepeasants，whoworkundertheleastfavourableconditions，isbestowedgratisuponsocietyanddoesnotatallenterintotheregulationofpriceofproductionorintothecreationofvalueingeneral。Thislowerpriceisconsequentlyaresultoftheproducers？povertyandbynomeansoftheirlabourproductivity。
Thisformoffreeself-managingpeasantproprietorshipoflandparcelsastheprevailing，normalformconstitutes，ontheonehand，theeconomicfoundationofsocietyduringthebestperiodsofclassicalantiquity，andontheotherhand，itisfoundamongmodernnationsasoneoftheformsarisingfromthedissolutionoffeudallandownership。Thus，theyeomanryinEngland，thepeasantryinSweden，theFrenchandWestGermanpeasants。
Wedonotincludecolonieshere，sincetheindependentpeasanttheredevelopsunderdifferentconditions。
Thefreeownershipoftheself-managingpeasantisevidentlythemostnormalformoflandedpropertyforsmall-scaleoperation，i。e。，foramodeofproduction，inwhichpossessionofthelandisaprerequisiteforthelabourer抯ownershipoftheproductofhisownlabour，andinwhichthecultivator，behefreeownerorvassal，alwaysmustproducehisownmeansofsubsistenceindependently，asanisolatedlabourerwithhisfamily。
Ownershipofthelandisasnecessaryforfulldevelopmentofthismodeofproductionasownershipoftoolsisforfreedevelopmentofhandicraftproduction。Hereisthebasisforthedevelopmentofpersonalindependence。
Itisanecessarytransitionalstageforthedevelopmentofagricultureitself。Thecauseswhichbringaboutitsdownfallshowitslimitations。
Theseare:Destructionofruraldomesticindustry，whichformsitsnormalsupplementasaresultofthedevelopmentoflarge-scaleindustry；agradualimpoverishmentandexhaustionofthesoilsubjectedtothiscultivation；
usurpationbybiglandownersofthecommonlands，whichconstitutethesecondsupplementofthemanagementoflandparcelseverywhereandwhichaloneenableittoraisecattle；competition，eitheroftheplantationsystemorlarge-scalecapitalistagriculture。Improvementsinagriculture，whichontheonehandcauseafallinagriculturalpricesand，ontheother，requiregreateroutlaysandmoreextensivematerialconditionsofproduction，alsocontributetowardsthis，asinEnglandduringthefirsthalfofthe18thcentury。
Proprietorshipoflandparcelsbyitsverynatureexcludesthedevelopmentofsocialproductiveforcesoflabour，socialformsoflabour，socialconcentrationofcapital，large-scalecattle-raising，andtheprogressiveapplicationofscience。
Usuryandataxationsystemmustimpoverishiteverywhere。Theexpenditureofcapitalinthepriceofthelandwithdrawsthiscapitalfromcultivation。
Aninfinitefragmentationofmeansofproduction，andisolationoftheproducersthemselves。Monstrouswasteofhumanenergy。Progressivedeteriorationofconditionsofproductionandincreasedpricesofmeansofproduction——aninevitablelawofproprietorshipofparcels。Calamityofseasonalabundanceforthismodeofproduction。[45]
Oneofthespecificevilsofsmall-scaleagriculturewhereitiscombinedwithfreeland-ownershiparisesfromthecultivator抯investingcapitalinthepurchaseofland。Thesameappliesalsotothetransitoryform，inwhichthebiglandownerinvestscapital，first，tobuyland，andsecond，tomanageitashisowntenantfarmer。Owingtothechangeablenaturewhichthelandhereassumesasamerecommodity，thechangesofownershipincrease，[46]sothattheland，fromthepeasant抯viewpoint，entersanewasaninvestmentofcapitalwitheachsuccessivegenerationanddivisionofestates，i。e。，itbecomeslandpurchasedbyhim。Thepriceoflandhereformsaweightyelementoftheindividualunproductivecostsofproductionorcost-priceoftheproductfortheindividualproducer。
Thepriceoflandisnothingbutcapitalisedandthereforeanticipatedrent。Ifcapitalistmethodsareemployedbyagriculture，sothatthelandlordreceivesonlyrent，andthefarmerpaysnothingforlandexceptthisannualrent，thenitisevidentthatthecapitalinvestedbythelandownerhimselfinpurchasingthelandconstitutesindeedaninterest-bearinginvestmentofcapitalforhim，buthasabsolutelynothingtodowithcapitalinvestedinagricultureitself。Itformsneitherapartofthefixed，norofthecirculating，capitalemployedhere；[47]itmerelysecuresforthebuyeraclaimtoreceiveannualrent，buthasabsolutelynothingtodowiththeproductionoftherentitself。Thebuyeroflandjustpayshiscapitalouttotheonewhosellstheland，andthesellerinreturnrelinquisheshisownershipofthelend。Thusthiscapitalnolongerexistsasthecapitalofthepurchaser；henolongerhasit；
thereforeitdoesnotbelongtothecapitalwhichhecaninvestinanywayinthelanditself。Whetherheboughtthelanddearorcheap，orwhetherhereceiveditfornothing，altersnothinginthecapitalinvestedbythefarmerinhisestablishment，andchangesnothingintherent，butmerelyaltersthequestionwhetheritappearstohimasinterestornot，orashigherorlowerinterestrespectively。
Take，forinstance，theslaveeconomy。Thepricepaidforaslaveisnothingbuttheanticipatedandcapitalisedsurplus-valueorprofittobewrungoutoftheslave。Butthecapitalpaidforthepurchaseofaslavedoesnotbelongtothecapitalbymeansofwhichprofit。，surplus-labour，isextractedfromhim。Onthecontrary。Itiscapitalwhichtheslave-bolderhaspartedwith，itisadeductionfromthecapitalwhichbehasavailableforactualproduction。Ithasceasedtoexistforhim，justascapitalinvestedinpurchasinglandhasceasedtoexistforagriculture。Thebestproofofthisisthatitdoesnotreappearfortheslave-holderorthelandownerexceptwhenhe，inturn，sellshisslavesorland。Butthenthesamesituationprevailsforthebuyer。Thefactthatbehasboughttheslavedoesnotenablehimtoexploittheslavewithoutfurtherado。Heisonlyabletodosowhenheinvestssomeadditionalcapitalintheslaveeconomyitself。
Thesamecapitaldoesnotexisttwice，onceinthehandsoftheseller，andasecondtimeinthehandsofthebuyeroftheland。itpassesfromthehandsofthebuyertothoseoftheseller，andtherethematterends。
Thebuyernownolongerhascapital，butinitssteadapieceofland。
Thecircumstancethattherentproducedbyarealinvestmentofcapitalinthislandiscalculatedbythenewlandownerasinterestoncapitalwhichhehasnotinvestedintheland，butgivenawaytoacquiretheland，doesnotintheleastaltertheeconomicnatureofthelandfactor，anymorethanthecircumstancethatsomeonehaspaid£；1，000for3%consolshasanythingtodowiththecapitaloutofwhoserevenuetheinterestonthenationaldebtispaid。
Infact，themoneyexpendedinpurchasingland，likethatinpurchasinggovernmentbonds，ismerelycapitalinitself，justasanyvaluesumiscapitalinitself，potentialcapital，onthebasisofthecapitalistmodeofproduction。Whatispaidforland，likethatforgovernmentbondsoranyotherpurchasedcommodity，isasumofmoney。Thisiscapitalinitself，becauseitcanbeconvertedintocapital。Itdependsupontheuseputtoitbythesellerwhetherthemoneyobtainedbyhimisreallytransformedintocapitalornot。Forthebuyer，itcanneveragainfunctionassuch，nomorethananyothermoneywhichhehasdefinitelypaidout。Itfiguresinhisaccountsasinterest-bearingcapital，becauseheconsiderstheincome，receivedasrentfromthelandorasinterestonstateindebtedness，asinterestonthemoneywhichthepurchaseoftheclaimtothisrevenuehascosthim。Hecanonlyrealiseitascapitalthroughresale。Butthenanother，thenewbuyer，entersthesamerelationshipmaintainedbytheformer，andthemoneythusexpendedcannotbetransformedintoactualcapitalfortheexpenderthroughanychangeofhands。
Inthecaseofsmalllandedpropertytheillusionisfosteredstillmorethatlanditselfpossessesvalueandthusentersascapitalintothepriceofproductionoftheproduct，muchasmachinesorrawmaterials。
Butwehaveseenthatrent，andthereforecapitalisedrent，thepriceofland，canenterasadeterminingfactorintothepriceofagriculturalproductsinonlytwocases。First，whenasaconsequenceofthecompositionofagriculturalcapital——acapitalwhichhasnothingtodowiththecapitalinvestedinpurchasingland——thevalueoftheproductsofthesoilishigherthantheirpriceofproduction，andmarketconditionsenablethelandlordtorealisethisdifference。Second，whenthereisamonopolyprice。
Andbothareleastofallthecaseunderthemanagementoflandparcelsandsmallland-ownershipbecausepreciselyhereproductiontoalargeextentsatisfiestheproducers？ownwantsandiscarriedonindependentlyofregulationbytheaveragerateofprofit。Evenwherecultivationoflandparcelsisconducteduponleasedland，theleasemoneycomprises，farmoresothanunderanyotherconditions，aportionoftheprofitandevenadeductionfromwages；thismoneyisthenonlyanominalrent，notrentasanindependentcategoryasopposedtowagesandprofit。
Theexpenditureofmoney-capitalforthepurchaseofland，then，isnotaninvestmentofagriculturalcapital。Itisadecreaseprotantointhecapitalwhichsmallpeasantscanemployintheirownsphereofproduction。Itreducesprotantothesizeoftheirmeansofproductionandtherebynarrowstheeconomicbasisofreproduction。Itsubjectsthesmallpeasanttothemoney-lender，sincecreditproperoccursbutrarelyinthissphereingeneral。Itisahindrancetoagriculture，evenwheresuchpurchasetakesplaceinthecaseoflargeestates。Itcontradictsinfactthecapitalistmodeofproduction，whichisonthewholeindifferenttowhetherthelandownerisindebt，nomatterwhetherhehasinheritedorpurchasedhisestate。Thenatureofmanagementoftheleasedestateitselfisnotalteredwhetherthelandownerpocketstherenthimselforwhetherhemustpayitouttotheholderofhismortgage。
Wehaveseenthat，inthecaseofagivenground-rent，thepriceoflandisregulatedbytheinterestrate。Iftherateislow，thenthepriceoflandishigh，andviceversa。Normally，then，ahighpriceoflandandalowinterestrateshouldgohandinhand，sothatifthepeasantpaidahighpriceforthelandinconsequenceofalowinterestrate，thesamelowrateofinterestshouldalsosecurehisworkingcapitalforhimoneasycreditterms。Butinreality，thingsturnoutdifferentlywhenpeasantproprietorshipoflandparcelsistheprevailingform。Inthefirstplace，thegenerallawsofcreditarenotadaptedtothefarmer，sincetheselawspresupposeacapitalistastheproducer。Secondly，whereproprietorshipoflandparcelspredominates——wearenotreferringtocolonieshere——
andthesmallpeasantconstitutesthebackboneofthenation，theformationofcapital，i。e。，socialreproduction，isrelativelyweak，andstillweakeristheformationofloanablemoney-capital，inthesensepreviouslyelaborated。ThispresupposestheconcentrationandexistenceofaclassofidlerichcapitalistsMassie。[[Massie]AnEssayontheGoverningCausesoftheNaturalRateofInterest，London，1750，pp23-24——Ed]Thirdly，herewheretheownershipofthelandisanecessaryconditionfortheexistenceofmostproducers，andanindispensablefieldofinvestmentfortheircapital，thepriceoflandisraisedindependentlyoftheinterestrate，andoftenininverseratiotoit，throughthepreponderanceofthedemandforlandedpropertyoveritssupply。Landsoldinparcelsbringsafarhigherpriceinsuchacasethanwhensoldinlargetracts，becauseherethenumberofsmallbuyersislargeandthatoflargebuyersissmallBandesNoires，[Associationsofprofiteers——Ed。]Rubichon；
Newman[Newman，LecturesonPoliticalEconomy，London，1851，pp。
180-81——Ed。]。Forallthesereasons，thepriceoflandrisesherewitharelativelyhighrateofinterest。Therelativelylowinterest，whichthepeasantderivesherefromtheoutlayofcapitalforthepurchaseoflandMounier，correspondshere，ontheotherside，tothehighusuriousinterestratewhichhehimselfhastopaytohismortgagecreditors。TheIrishsystembearsoutthesamething，onlyinanotherform。
Thepriceofland，thiselementforeigntoproductioninitself，maythereforeriseheretosuchapointthatitmakesproductionimpossibleDombasle。
Thefactthatthepriceoflandplayssucharole，thatpurchaseandsale，thecirculationoflandasacommodity，developstothisdegree，ispracticallyaresultofthedevelopmentofthecapitalistmodeofproductioninsofarasacommodityisherethegeneralformofallproductsandallinstrumentsofproduction。Ontheotherhand，thisdevelopmenttakesplaceonlywherethecapitalistmodeofproductionhasalimiteddevelopmentanddoesnotunfoldallofitspeculiarities，becausethisrestspreciselyuponthefactthatagricultureisnolonger，ornotyet，subjecttothecapitalistmodeofproduction，butrathertoonehandeddownfromextinctformsofsociety。Thedisadvantagesofthecapitalistmodeofproduction，withitsdependenceoftheproduceruponthemoney-priceofhisproduct，coincideherethereforewiththedisadvantagesoccasionedbytheimperfectdevelopmentofthecapitalistmodeofproduction。Thepeasantturnsmerchantandindustrialistwithouttheconditionsenablinghimtoproducehisproductsascommodities。
Theconflictbetweenthepriceoflandasanelementintheproducers？
cost-priceandnoelementinthepriceofproductioneventhoughtherententersasadeterminingfactorintothepriceoftheagriculturalproduct，thecapitalisedrent，whichisadvancedfor20yearsormore，bynomeansentersasadeterminantisbutoneoftheformsmanifestingthegeneralcontradictionbetweenprivateland-ownershipandarationalagriculture，thenormalsocialutilisationofthesoil。Butontheotherhand，privatelandownership，andtherebyexpropriationofthedirectproducersfromtheland——privateland-ownershipbytheone，whichimplieslackofownershipbyothers——isthebasisofthecapitalistmodeofproduction。
Here，insmall-scaleagriculture，thepriceofland，aformandresultofprivateland-ownership，appearsasabarriertoproductionitself。Inlarge-scaleagriculture，andlargeestatesoperatingonacapitalistbasis，ownershiplikewiseactsasabarrier，becauseitlimitsthetenantfarmerinhisproductiveinvestmentofcapital，whichinthefinalanalysisbenefitsnothim，butthelandlord。Inbothforms，exploitationandsquanderingofthevitalityofthesoilapartfrommakingexploitationdependentupontheaccidentalandunequalcircumstancesofindividualproducersratherthantheattainedlevelofsocialdevelopmenttakestheplaceofconsciousrationalcultivationofthesoilaseternalcommunalproperty，aninalienableconditionfortheexistenceandreproductionofachainofsuccessivegenerationsofthehumanrace。Inthecaseofsmallproperty，thisresultsfromthelackofmeansandknowledgeofapplyingthesociallabourproductivity。
Inthecaseoflargeproperty，itresultsfromtheexploitationofsuchmeansforthemostrapidenrichmentoffarmerandproprietor。Inthecaseofboththroughdependenceonthemarket-price。
Allcritiqueofsmalllandedpropertyresolvesitselfinthefinalanalysisintoacriticismofprivateownershipasabarrierandhindrancetoagriculture。
Andsimilarlyallcounter-criticismoflargelandedproperty。Ineithercase，ofcourse，weleaveasideallsecondarypoliticalconsiderations。
Thisbarrierandhindrance，whichareerectedbyallprivatelandedpropertyvis-à；-visagriculturalproductionandtherationalcultivation，maintenanceandimprovementofthesoilitself，developonbothsidesmerelyindifferentforms，andinwranglingoverthespecificformsofthisevilitsultimatecauseisforgotten。
Smalllandedpropertypresupposesthattheoverwhelmingmajorityofthepopulationisrural，andthatnotsocial，butisolatedlabourpredominates；
andthat，therefore，undersuchconditionswealthanddevelopmentofreproduction，bothofitsmaterialandspiritualprerequisites，areoutofthequestion，andtherebyalsotheprerequisitesforrationalcultivation。Ontheotherhand，largelandedpropertyreducestheagriculturalpopulationtoaconstantlyfallingminimum，andconfrontsitwithaconstantlygrowingindustrialpopulationcrowdedtogetherinlargecities。Ittherebycreatesconditionswhichcauseanirreparablebreakinthecoherenceofsocialinterchangeprescribedbythenaturallawsoflife。Asaresult，thevitalityofthesoilissquandered，andthisprodigalityiscarriedbycommercefarbeyondthebordersofaparticularstateLiebig。[Liebig，DieChemieinihrerAnwendungaufAgriculturundPhysiologie，Braunschweig，1862——
Ed。]
Whilesmalllandedpropertycreatesaclassofbarbariansstandinghalfwayoutsideofsociety，aclasscombiningallthecrudenessofprimitiveformsofsocietywiththeanguishandmiseryofcivilisedcountries，largelandedpropertyundermineslabour-powerinthelastregion，whereitsprimeenergyseeksrefugeandstoresupitsstrengthasareservefundfortheregenerationofthevitalforceofnations——onthelanditself。Large-scaleindustryandlarge-scalemechanisedagricultureworktogether。Iforiginallydistinguishedbythefactthattheformerlayswasteanddestroysprincipallylabour-power，hencethenaturalforceofhumanbeings，whereasthelattermoredirectlyexhauststhenaturalvitalityofthesoil，theyjoinhandsinthefurthercourseofdevelopmentinthattheindustrialsysteminthecountry-sidealsoenervatesthelabourers，andindustryandcommerceontheirpartsupplyagriculturewiththemeansforexhaustingthesoil。
Footnotes[42a]AdamSmithemphasiseshow，inhistimeandthisappliesalsototheplantationsintropicalandsubtropicalcountriesinourownday，rentandprofitwerenotyetdivorcedfromoneanother[Smith，AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations，Aberdeen，London，1848，p。44——
Ed。]，forthelandlordwassimultaneouslyacapitalist，justasCato，forinstance，wasonhisestates。Butthisseparationispreciselytheprerequisiteforthecapitalistmodeofproduction，towhoseconceptionthebasisofslaverymoreoverstandsindirectcontradiction。
[43]HerrMommsen，inhis”RomanHistory，”bynomeansusesthetermcapitalistinthesenseemployedbymoderneconomicsandmodernsociety，butratherinthemannerofpopularconception，suchasstillcontinuestothrive，thoughnotinEnglandorAmerica，butneverthelessontheEuropeancontinent，asanancienttraditionreflectingbygoneconditions。
[44]Followingtheconquestofacountry，theimmediateaimofaconquerorwasalsotoconvertitspeopletohisownuse。Cf。Linguet[Theoriedesloiciviles，ouPrincipesfondamentauxdelasocié；té；，TomesI-II，Londres，1767——Ed。]。SeealsoMö；ser[Osnabrü；kischeGeschichte，1。Theil，BerlinundStettin，S。178——Ed。]。
[44a]CfBuvet[Coursd？eacute；conomiepolitique，Bruxelles，1842——Ed。]
Tocqueville[L抋ncienré；gimeetlaré；volution，Paris，1856-Ed。]，Sismondi[Nouveauxprincipesd？eacute；conomiepolitique——
Secondeé；dition，TomeI，Paris，1827——Ed。]
[45]SeethespeechfromthethroneoftheKingofFranceinTooke。[New-march，A
HistoryofPrices，andoftheStateoftheCirculation，duringthenineyears1848-56，Vol。VI，London。1857，pp。29-30——Ed。]
[46]SeeMounier[Del抋gricultureenFrance，Paris，1846——Ed。]andRubichon[Dumé；chanismedelasocié；té；enFranceetenAngleterre，Paris。1837——Ed。]。
[47]Dr。H。
MaronExtensivoderIntensiv？[nofurtherinformationgivenaboutthispamphlet]startsfromthefalseassumptionoftheadversariesheopposes。
Heassumesthatcapitalinvestedinthepurchaseoflandis”investmentcapital，”andthenengagesinacontroversyabouttherespectivedefinitionsofinvestmentcapitalandworkingcapital，thatis，fixedandcirculatingcapital。Hiswhollyamateurishconceptionsofcapitalingeneral，whichmaybeexcusedincidentallyinonewhoisnotaneconomistinviewofthestateofGermanpoliticaleconomy，concealfromhimthatthiscapitalisneitherinvestmentnorworkingcapital，anymorethanthecapitalwhichsomeoneinvestsattheStockExchangeinpurchasingstocksorgovernmentsecurities，andwhich，forhim，representsapersonalinvestmentofcapital，is”invested”inanybranchofproduction。