Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation!

CONTENTS (Sorry, Those Except I Are Getting Ready.)

1. Introduction:  The “Premise” of Marx’s Theory of Ground-Rent
2. On Differential Rent
3. Absolute Rent and “Genuine Monopoly Price”
4. An Overview: On the Distinction Between the Different Forms of Rent
5. The Extinction of Rent and Socialism

The “Premise” of Marx’s Theory of Ground-Rent

In chapter forty-seven of the third volume of Capital, Marx frames the question: “It is necessary to clarify the exact nature of the difficulty faced by modern economics, as the theoretical expression of the capitalist mode of production, in its treatment of ground rent.”?He then responds to this question:　

If ground-rent comes from “genuine monopoly price” then there would be no theoretical difficulty. If this were the case, it would be sufficient to pose the problem of ground-rent in terms of being a deposit paid from the special profit determined according to the needs of consumers and their ability to pay. In fact, however, ground-rent is not determined by “genuine monopoly price.”　

In a sense, of course, all rent is a special profit that comes from a monopoly price?this is it is one part of surplus-value that landed property receives on the basis of ownership rights. Marx, however, explains the “normal” forms of rent (differential and absolute rent) in distinction from what he refers to as “genuine monopoly price.” He makes such a distinction because the commodity price resulting in rent is certainly not simply a price (land price) determined by supply and demand. Rather, Marx explains this price through a particular application of the theory of value and production price (the transformed form of value). This relation is clear in the case of differential rent, but absolute rent must also be posited within the determinations of the law of value.

Marx’s theory of rent was consciously developed as a theory of capitalistic rent, and therefore it presupposes an understanding of value, surplus-value, and the transformation of surplus value into profit. In other words, it is necessary to understand the formation of the average rate of profit and the transformation of profit into production price (see the sixth section of third volume of Capital). Therefore, a correct understanding of Marx’s theory of rent must be based on an overall understanding of the theory of value and surplus-value. Here, however, we cannot possibly provide a comprehensive explanation of these points, and will thus refer to these premises only when the necessity arises.

Marx poses the question of capitalistic ground-rent (its two normal forms: differential and absolute rent), but at the same time he does not completely neglect the question of ground-rent in general or the various historical forms that it has taken. Marx at the same time elucidates and scientifically defines rent in general and the many historical forms it has taken, while discussing the relation of this to capitalistic rent,

Since Marx fundamentally deals with the problem of capitalistic ground-rent, or ground-rent in agricultural production (grain production), this seems to be a purely abstract theory that has no direct relationship to the problem of rent in contemporary Japan. In a sense this is the case, since today in Japan capitalistic agriculture has not been established and small-scale production is still predominant. In the form of “contractual cultivation,” the relations of ground-rent have developed in agriculture to some extent, but this cannot be called the dominant relation within agriculture. Moreover, this relation has been regulated by means of the power of the state. Every day, in every aspect of the production of capital and the life of working people, we are reminded that the question of rent?either in its independent, pure form, or in connection to various forms of profit and interest?is not an inconsequential thing. Most workers, for example, are obliged to pay a huge sum of roughly one-third of their income for “housing rent.” It is clear that this sum includes a “tribute,” either in rent or interest on “capital,” made to an unproductive class (owners of land and residential buildings) that has a parasitical relation towards the working class. Furthermore, “land price” is also determined by rent, since the “price” of land is essentially rent reduced to capital through interest rates. However, here we will limit ourselves to the theory of ground-rent developed by Marx, and leave to another time the discussion of the application of this theory to present-day reality in Japan. There is no question, however, that Marx’s theory of ground-rent has great practical significance, and this point will be made clear in the final section of this paper when we look at the conditions necessary for the elimination of ground-rent.

To begin with, I would like to say a word about Marx’s method or manner of developing his theory of rent. After clarifying the premise of the theory of ground-rent?the idea that capitalistic production adapts and subordinates landed property to its own purposes?Marx begins by analyzing how one sector of industrial capital can make use of the forces of nature in a “waterfall” to generate excess profits, thereby generating differential rent. This overview of differential rent is followed by a concrete and comprehensive explanation of differential rent within agriculture; and then a definition of absolute rent. (These chapters are then followed by a discussion of the rent of buildings and mines, the price of land, as well as a historical overview of rent. In Theories of Surplus Value, Marx described the significance of this “method” in the following way: 　

2 On Differential Rent

Prior to Marx, Ricardo had already developed a theory of differential rent and his understanding was comparatively good (although his theory had many defects and mistakes?such as combining it with the “law diminishing returns”). Still, to understand this kind of rent it is important to have a scientific conception of capital, not to mention value. Marx says the following about Ricardo’s theory of rent:　

Here Ricardo is not very precise, but he has clearly defined the essence of differential rent.

In explaining differential rent in general, Marx draws examples not from agriculture, but from the “use of waterfalls.” He does this because differential rent can arise from a natural force that raises production and is quantitatively limited so that the “natural force can be monopolized” (see Marx’s explanation in the quote in the first section).

After “establishing the general concept of differential rent,” Marx then moves on to the “consideration of differential rent within agriculture.” However, Marx says that we should consider the significance of the concept of differential rent not only in agriculture, but in capitalistic production in general. He teaches us that the form of excess profit turned into differential rent is merely the outcome of capitalistic production; that is, the fruit of capitalistic conditions?the free competition of capital, the transferability of capital from one sphere of production to another, the formation of average profit, and therefore the transformation of value into production price, etc. For these reasons, for a theory of rent, the theory of value and its transformation into production price must first be established. Without the correct theory of value and capital, a correct theory of rent is impossible.

As is well known, Marx demonstrated that with the establishment of capitalistic production, the commodity is exchanged not on the basis of “value” (a socially determined quantity of labor, or a certain amount of objectified social labor), but rather on the basis of “production price.” This is the same thing as what Smith called the “natural price,” that is, the “cost” necessary for the production of the commodity plus the “average profit.” Here the concept of average profit must be understood. Commodity production does not stop with simple commodity production, but when it turns into capitalistic commodity production, each capital seeks profit in proportion to its own size (this is enforced through competition).

However, the organic composition of capital in each sector of production (i.e. the ratio of constant to variable capital) differs greatly, and therefore if the ratio of surplus-value (ratio of exploitation) is fixed (remains the same, constant?), the profit ratio will certainly not be in proportion to the size of capital. This is a self-contradiction for capital as value, and capital as aggregate capital redistributes the overall surplus-value in accordance to the size of each separate capital. Even if the aggregate capital is 500 and the aggregate surplus-value is 110, the profit will all be at the level of 23 percent regardless of the organic composition of each capital. In short, the general (average) profit ratio formation, is not by the “value” of the commodity of each capital, but is sold according to the “production price.” In this case, of course, between the value of each commodity and production price, a certain distance arises. However, seen overall, value and production price are in agreement, and the aggregate of surplus-value and profit are in agreement.

However, for the purpose of this article we need not go further in the explanation of profit ratio and production price. I will leave a more detailed study of the matter to the readers themselves and proceed with the topic at hand.

At any rate, when the commodity as the product of capital is sold, not as “value,” but as “production price,” it is sold as the product of land and production price. That is according to the presupposition, agriculture is also managed by the capitalist farmer. The question is: what sort of the production price is the production price in agriculture? That is, the products of the land, depending on the natural productivity of the land, each yield different production prices. Moreover, unlike industry, the differences in productivity do not exist as temporary, constantly dissolving differences. Under such conditions, the prices of products of the land are determined by the sales price of the products of the worst land, and therefore its individual production price becomes the market-adjusted production price.

Differential rent is a special profit appropriated by landed property as rent which is formed from the fact that products of the land are produced on land that have different rates of fertility. Simply put it is the following?A and B are two types of land, A is more inferior land and B has a higher rate of productivity (natural fertility). What determines the market price of the product of the land (for instance wheat) is A’s wheat, not B’s. This is because wheat is wheat and there is no essential difference between the land A and B, they are the same commodity which is sold at the same price. If the demand for wheat would not be met by the production of B alone, and it were necessary to also produce on land A, wheat would have to be sold at a high enough level to ensure the average profit for the capitalist who manages land A.

If it cannot be sold at this price, then capital would stop the production of wheat and move to another sector. Conversely, if the average rate of profit can be obtained, capital would produce on land A, and in this way the market sales price, i.e. production price, of A would determine the price of wheat. In this case, it is not a question of whether A or B will produce a greater quantity. Even if A were to produce 10 percent and B 90 percent, the production cost determining the market price of wheat would be the production price of A, not B. Here we are not dealing with the principles of the “market price” wherein the commodity of average conditions, or the product that can be produced in the greatest quantity, plays the determining role.

This can be expressed numerically in the following way: The production cost of wheat (market-adjusted production cost) is determined by the production price of A’s wheat, for instance: 100Kp + 15P = 115 (Kp = cost price, P = average profit). On the other hand, B has higher productivity, and its cost price would be 90 rather than 100. Therefore, if this were sold at a market adjusted production price of 115, profit would be 25, rather than 15. This would mean a excess profit of 10. This excess profit would pass not to the hands of the capitalist farmer, but rather to the landowner, since the higher productive power creating this surplus profit stems from the landed property, rather than capital. In short, this difference of 10 (between individual profit and average profit) is differential rent.　

The surplus profit that arises from this use of the waterfall thus arises not from the capital but rather from the use by capital of a monopolizable and monopolized natural force. (p. 785)　

Concerning differential rent, Marx says that, “it does not contribute to determining the general production price of the commodity, but takes this as given.” (p. 785) This differential rent arises from differences in the productiveness of the monopolizable natural force, but he emphasizes that this natural force “is not the source of the surplus profit, but simply a natural basis for it,” (p. 786) Marx then explains the relationship between differential rent and landed property in the following way:　

This is very important concerning the distinction with absolute rent.

Absolute rent, as the name implies, is rent that is “absolute”?that is rent in general that can arise even on the poorest land. This is “absolute” to the extent that “landed property operates as an absolute barrier.”

As we can understand well from our own experience, even inferior land is not given by the landowner to the capitalist free for him to manage it to make a profit. Here the capitalist meets an “alien power and restriction.” 　

In other words, absolute rent is a rent that is obtained by actively raising the price of the product over the price of production, and in this case “it is not the rise in the product’s price that is the cause of the rent but rather the rent that is the cause of the rise in price.” (p. 897) The excess value of a product over its production price,” i.e. absolute rent, makes up one determining moment of the general market price. Here landed property raises the price of agricultural products to produce rent, and this is the fundamental difference from differential rent.　

The above explanation of the concept of absolute rent should be basically clear, but the difficult question of where this rent and the “genuine monopoly price” come from still remains. This is because it is not easy to theoretically explain this as a “genuine monopoly price.”

Absolute rent is defined as a rent of the monopoly of landed　property which places a barrier before capital. If this is the case, this means that it is “a rent based on the genuine monopoly price.” Why then is it not called a rent of genuine monopoly price?

Here a number of distinctions arise. First of all, the price part of this rent is not merely nominal, but one part of the value of agricultural products. Put in general terms, the agricultural sector lags behind the industrial sector, and has a lower organic composition of capital. Therefore, when average profit rates are formed, and turned into production price, the production price of agricultural products is fixed at a level lower below its value (this is because of the lower organic composition, meaning fixed capital is higher proportionally, and thus there is a greater proportion of directly exploited workers, and this has more surplus-value than other sectors. In forming the average rates of profit, the agricultural sector distributes one part of its surplus value to other commercial capital.) Absolute rent is nothing but the “excess value over the production price” of agricultural profits, not the excess price that exceeds the value of the product (this is instead the fundamental characteristic of the “genuine monopoly price”).

In Capital, there is a passage where Marx compares the “normal” forms of rent (differential and absolute) with rent based on the “genuine monopoly price.”　

Here the distinction between absolute rent, differential rent, and “genuine monopoly price” is defined. That is, unlike differential rent determined by the production price, and “genuine monopoly price” determined by “the demand of the purchasers and their ability to pay,” absolute rent is determined by value. It is clearly said that this is “the excess value over and above the price of production” and the transformation of “surplus-value produced in agriculture” into rent. And as the portion of value transformed into rent grows larger, the price of agricultural products rises, making the participation of the equalization of the average profit of the surplus-value produced in agriculture that much smaller.

Therefore, absolute rent as a category of “rent based on genuine monopoly price,” becomes less important as the organic composition of agricultural capital grows larger and becomes “socially average capital.” This is because what produces absolute rent is the low organic composition of agricultural sector, and capital is mainly or almost exclusively expended in variable capital, i.e. labor, and therefore has more surplus-value when compared to other capital of equal size, but this situation would disappear.

Secondly, absolute ground-rent is not simply monopoly price (not a purely a monopoly-added price) because landed property itself does not put to an end the free competition among capital. That is, if the demand for crops expands and the market price rises, capital will seek production in newly cultivated land, and competition between the capital of various land?whether this is more capital investment in already existing cultivated land or in newly cultivated land?will intensify. As a result of this, the production of agricultural products will expand and price will depend on the standard of the new landed property?i.e. the inferior land. It is clear that this is not the “genuine monopoly price.” “Genuine monopoly price” is not the intensification of competition, but rather its absence, for the concept to have suitable content. Marx’s absolute ground-rent is not a “competition theory that researches the movement of the reality of market prices,” but rather is determined within the scope of the concept of value and its transformation into production price.

In the eighth chapter of Theories of Surplus Value, Marx critically examines the ideas of Rodbertus and Ricardo, and has much to say. He recognizes that in a sense ground-rent is a monopoly price?in the sense that just as the “monopolization” of the means of production provides the right to exploit labor and extract a surplus, so does the “monopolization” of the land provide the right to obtain ground rent? but he was opposed to defining this (absolute ground-rent) as “genuine monopoly price”: 　

In other words, landed property creates absolute rent, but while being subordinate to the action of capital (competition), not the “original monopoly price,” it takes the form of a barrier to the transformation of value into production price. The competition between capitals is premised, and therefore absolute rent cannot be explained by the “original monopoly price” which presupposes its suspension. For this reason, Marx says the following:　

He also criticizes Rodbertus in the following way:　

We can deepen our understanding of differential ground-rent and absolute ground-rent?“the two normal forms of ground-rent”?by explaining each one and then comparing the two forms. This comparison was made in the passage above, and in the following passage of Marx:　

Of course, the terminology used here by Marx was not strictly followed in Capital. “Average price” more exactly is “production price.” Moreover, the definition of differential rent is the difference between the market adjusted production price and the individual production price. However, if one is aware that production price itself is the transformed form of value, Marx’s manner of expression here does not impede the understanding of differential rent at all. That is, the value of the crops on superior land, is naturally lower than the market price of the crops. Therefore, by selling it at the market price a special profit clearly emerges, and when the landowner takes this profit, on the basis of the authority of ownership, this is differential rent.

To further deepen the understanding of differential and absolute ground-rent, let’s look at the distinction between the two in a number of provisions.

First of all, the price part (excess profit) that accrues to ground-rent is fundamentally different from the relationship of landed property. In the case of differential rent, its price is not actively formed by landed property. Rather, this presupposes the transformation of profit into average profit and value into production price, i.e. the transformation of “market price into adjusted average.” Various levels of land fertility will yield products that are sold at different values (market adjusted production price) and to this extent landed property does not play an active role in the price formation. This is not the forced principle of landed property, but the principle of capital wherein all of the identical commodities gain an average profit, and must be sold at the same cost (i.e. “the determination of market price adjusted production price through competition). A more favorable land’s products will receive a special profit and this is the outcome of this law and the outcome of this price, but this does not mean that the landed property creates the price itself. Based on the right of private ownership, landed property turns the special profit into differential rent and puts this into his own pocket.

On the other hand, in the case of absolute rent, landed property actively creates the price of the agricultural product. That is, rent alone pushes the price above the production price. By not allowing cultivation until rent is produced, landed property forces this rent on capital. Here, more than in differential rent, landed property insists on its own rights.

Therefore, the following distinction naturally emerges between these two kinds of rent. In the price of agricultural products resulting from differential rent, the production price alone is the issue?that is, the difference between the “market price” and “individual price” of agricultural products; whereas in the price of absolute rent this is a question of “an excess part of value” above the production price. This “excess part of value” does not exceed the value of the agricultural product, and is an “excess part of value” determined within the bounds of the difference between the size of the production price and that of value (see the figure above).Therefore, this is not determined by the production price, but rather the value, since this is “excess part of value” that exceeds the production price but does not exceed the value of the agricultural product.

Furthermore, a difference arises from the source of this special profit (rent). Marx wrote a famous passage describing differential rent as a “false social value,” and there was a big debate in Japan over this (although most of this is pedantic blather, particularly that of Uno Kozo and Ouchi). Marx, using a chart, illustrated that 10 quarters of wheat with a value of 240 shillings, sold for 600 shillings would yield a differential rent of 360 shillings, and then said the following:　

Differential rent is not surplus-value formed in the agricultural sector, a social surplus-value paid to landowners by society. This is “false” because even though it is expressed as “market value” it is lacking in substance. What seems to have a value of 600 shillings is in fact a value of 240 shillings. The difference of 360 shillings in value is a sum paid by society to the simply parasitical class of landowners.

It is clear that this “false social value” is not always one part of the surplus-value produced in the agricultural sector. The fact that the total production price of 240 shillings is in fact turned into 600 shillings is that society, “seen as a consumer,” paid this amount, and in this case the part of the surplus-value produced by agriculture has no direct relation to this.

On the other hand, in the case of absolute rent the surplus-value that is produced in agriculture is turned into rent through the power of the landowner. That is, this comes from the excess part of value that exceeds the production price of the agricultural product. Theoretically, this is nothing but the transformation of the surplus-value formed in agriculture into rent. Unlike differential rent, this is a part of surplus-value that exceeds the production price of the commodity itself.

The distinction between differential and absolute ground-rent is the one above, but we need to summarize the difference between these two forms and “genuine monopoly price.” In particular, there is a certain difficulty in understanding the difference between absolute rent and rent based upon monopoly price. This is because, in a sense, rent presupposes the restricted nature of the monopoly on land (private ownership).

What can be said first of all is that genuine monopoly price can be formed in any landed property. For example, extremely special wine that can only be produced in certain limited regions, will likely have a great monopoly price on the market. That is, as Marx says, a price “determined neither by the price of production of the commodities nor by their value, but rather by the demand of the purchasers and their ability to pay, consideration of which therefore belongs to the theory of competition, where the actual movement of market prices is investigated.” (vol. 3 p. 898) This monopoly price can create another kind of rent. However, this is fundamentally different from differential and absolute ground-rent which can be explained theoretically according to the determination by value or the price of production?its size, limitations and essence.

This “genuine monopoly price” can not only be removed from the price of production, but can also exceed the limitations of value?has no limits?and in this sense the difference between the two kinds of rent is clear. Marx defined absolute rent as a rent ultimately coming not from monopoly price, but rather from the regulation of landed property, and this point holds great significance. In terms of creating a special profit that boosts up the price, “genuine monopoly price” is identical to absolute ground-rent. On the other hand, however, in the sense that price is presupposed and landed property merely takes in the excess profit that is created?paid for by the “society as consumer”?this can also be said to also share an identical aspect with differential ground-rent. Still, the price that makes both monopoly price and differential ground-rent possible is a price of an essentially different dimension.

We must recognize that ground-rent?even as monopoly price? does not discard the law of value. All forms of rent are a kind of surplus-value of society, that is, it is profit, interest, ground-rent, and other unearned income. This is the sum of surplus-labor and nothing else.

5 The Extinction of Rent and Socialism

Rent is essentially one historical social relation, one relation of human beings in a society based on private property in which “the monopoly of a piece of the earth enables the so-called landowner to exact a tribute, to put a price on it.” (p. 762)

Therefore, it is perfectly clear that this will disappear along with the elimination of private property. However, on the other hand, for capital, landed property is also something extra, a relation that is not always necessary for its development. Of course, it is clear that land is essential for the movement of capital as one of the objective conditions of production. However, for capital this does not represent an essential moment. The essential thing for capital is the relationship between capital and wage labor?i.e. the social relationship between the labor=production means accumulated in the past and living labor. Land as a simply natural thing, although important, lies outside of this relationship.

Thus, as long as capitalism continues, differential rent will not disappear, but absolute rent can disappear upon the basis of capitalist production (here we can see an important distinction between these two kinds of rent). This elimination of absolute rent is possible under two different scenarios.

First of all, through the abolishment of the private ownership of land and its nationalization. Here, land only, as one of the means of production, is nationalized, but capitalist production continues as before. Under this condition, absolute rent is ended because there is no private ownership of the land. By removing the resistance of land to the movement of capital, capitalist development can advance further.

As we have already seen in the discussion of absolute ground-rent, unlike differential ground-rent, absolute ground-rent directly influences the price of agricultural products. That is, it raises their price and in this way drags down the general rate of profit. This means that the interests of the landowning class come at the expense of the bourgeois class. For capital, the nationalization of the land would mean getting rid of this unnecessary element, and thus the “radical bourgeoisie” have raised the slogan of “nationalizing the land.”　

The difference between the productive power of steam and that of the soil is thus only that one yields unpaid labor to the capitalist and the other to the landowner, who does not take it away from the worker, but from the capitalist. The capitalist is therefore so enthusiastic about this element “belonging to no one.”

Only this much is correct:

Assuming the capitalist mode of production, the capitalist is not only a necessary functionary, but the dominating functionary in production. The landowner, on the other hand, is quite superfluous in this mode of production. Its only requirement is that land should not be common property, that it should confront the working class as a condition of production, not belonging to it, and the purpose is completely fulfilled if it becomes State property, i.e., if the State draws the rent. The landowner, such an important functionary in production in the ancient world and in the Middle Ages, is a useless superfetation in the industrial world. The radical bourgeois (with an eye besides to the suppression of all other taxes) therefore goes forward theoretically to a refutation of the private ownership of the land, which, in the form of State property, he would like to turn into the common property of the bourgeois class, of capital. But in practice he lacks the courage, since an attack on one form of property?a form of the private ownership of a condition of labor?might cast considerable doubts on the other form. Besides, the bourgeois has himself become an owner of the land. (vol 31 p. 278)

There is another case in which absolute ground-rent could be eliminated on the basis of capitalism. Absolute ground-rent necessitates agriculture to lag behind industry relatively, so that the value of its products are comparatively high. If agriculture develops more rapidly than industry and this comparative lag were to be overcome, theoretically at least, absolute ground-rent would not be able to exist.　

Here the essential aspect of absolute rent that it can only exist at the historical stage in which the development of agriculture is lower than that of industry, is made clear.

Thus, absolute rent can be eliminated if the land is nationalized or if the lagging of agriculture is overcome?although in Japan today it is almost impossible to realize this. However, differential rent cannot be eliminated under capitalism since it is determined by more fundamental capitalistic laws. For example, even if “the State appropriated the land and capitalist production continued, then rent from II, III, IV (Marx defined I as inferior land, and labeled II, III and IV according to increases in strength) would be paid to the state, but rent as such would remain.” (vol. 31 p. 335) That is, even if the productive power of agriculture were to increase to the point that it was equal to or greater than that of industry, absolute rent could disappear while differential rent would remain.

However, if capitalistic production were abolished, that is socialism were organized, then differential rent would also disappear. Already in the previous section we quoted a passage from Capital in which landed property was called “a false social value” since a 240 shillings value of products can be sold for 600 shillings, that is a excess profit (differential rent) of 360 shillings. In that same section, Marx wrote that if socialism were realized “society would therefore not purchase this product at 2.5 times the actual labor-time contained in it (crops),” (p. 799) and he says nearly the same thing in Theories of Surplus Value:　

Of course, when capitalism is overcome it will not only be differential but also rent in general?rent in all its forms?that will disappear (as well as the general appropriation of surplus-labor). Even though absolute rent has the potential to be eliminated even on a foundation of capitalistic production, this does not mean that it would in reality. In fact, rent overall is only realistic as absolute rent plus differential rent.

Up to now we have mainly discussed the distinction between the different forms of rent, but in conclusion we must emphasize that the three rents, as rent, are essentially identical. Regardless of what form it may take, in the case of rent, landed property receives a special surplus- product from society “gratis” on the basis of the right of private ownership. In Marx’s famous section “The Trinity Formula” there is the following critical section:　

Marx clearly says that just as the means of production as capital, which are monopolized, receive a tribute through the right and power of ownership, so does rent?through the monopolized land, i.e. landed property?receive a portion of the products. Moreover, whereas the functional character of capital in the realization of surplus-value is concealed, the relationship wherein landed property as property receives a tribute is perfectly plain and simple.

At the beginning of his theory of ground-rent, Marx clarifies the premise of his discussion of rent. In this part, he says that he will not discuss rent in general but capitalistic ground-rent, and that he will free himself from the many impurities within rent in general (the interest of fixed capital or the deduction from labor) and limit what is considered. Still, he knows that the essence of the problem is that “the monopoly of a piece of the earth enables the so-called landowner to exact a tribute.” (p. 762) To treat capitalistic ground-rent as rent in general, or dissolve it within it, so as to abandon the particular specific analysis would be a mistake. At the same time, however, not for a moment does Marx doubt that ground-rent is the outcome of landed property that is one form of private ownership. 　

To understand Marx’s theory of ground-rent it is necessary to be clearly aware of the fact that landowners exploit part or all of the surplus-labor of another person by receiving a tribute of free labor, and therefore this presupposes private ownership in which pieces of the earth are exclusively owned or monopolized. For Marx this was a clear premise, and he saw no need to emphasize this. What he emphasized rather was the mistake of explaining capitalistic rent from landownership in general, thereby overlooking the specific historical character, or differentia specifica, of capitalistic rent. The Uno school distorts the content and development of Marx’s theory of rent, and jettison the radical (fundamental) critical consciousness towards rent (and therefore against the private ownership of land), and speak of a “pure economic” theory of rent.

As we have already made clear, capitalistic ground-rent has its own particular economic laws (just as the realization of surplus-value and exploitation of labor do) and it is important to understand them, however one can certainly not forget that “the fact that the appropriation of rent is the economic form in which landed property is realized and that ground-rent in turn presupposes landed property, the ownership of particular bits of the globe by certain individuals.” (p. 772) Differential ground-rent, not to mention absolute ground-rent, as ground-rent comes down to the power of the private ownership of the land that is in the hands of the landowners, and is its realized “economic form.” Without the fundamental awareness (criticism) of this private ownership of land, it must be said that a theory of ground-rent is a fraud and ……We might therefore say that Marx’s theory of ground-rent is the “theoretical form of self-expression” of Marx as a communist. Marx wrote the following beautiful passage as a communist, and with it we will bring this article to an end: