Property thus originally means no more than a human beings relation to his natural conditions of production as belonging to him, as his, as presupposed along with his own being; relations to them as natural presuppositions of his self, which only form, so to speak his extended body. (Grundrisse p.491)
Basically, Marx is saying that property rights form the basis of our individual identity right down to the core of how people use language, how they perceive themselves - there is an ontology associated with capitalism that is in fact necessary to reconstitute the capitalist system... and what is interesting here is that Marx is not talking about that ontology as the production of some ideological state apparatus, but the as the real result of how people interact with one another at the community level... Dasein (although he had no clue that Heidegger would take up this very same language years later) is actually the result of our relations to one another... since it is constructed by language, and language can only exist as the result of a communal experience (i.e. there is no such thing as a personal language - sorry Jodie Foster - Nell WAS a terrible movie) - therefore language is always the possibility of a communal understanding of Dasein - In fact, the dynamic duo of Bahktin and Voloshinov have made this point, that language is the domain for transforming capitalist society - and there you have the birth of marxist literary criticism. My question for the group is this... can the turn to language really result in revolutionary changes in what is essentially an economic and property based social system (i.e. capitalism) or is something more drastic required - In other words, does the revolution begin with someone like James Joyce rather than someone like the Weather Underground?