Between itself the men distinguish themselves as position that each one assumes in the social division of the work, that is what it conditions its access the goods that had been produced, creating its material life, influencing the form of the society if to relate with the nature and divergindo in different geographies. The way of organization of each society to constantly become related with the way, reapropriando itself of the nature anger if to express in the landscape of the different territorial arrangements that if had materialized in elapsing of the historical process of production of the existence human being who if objective in geographies. The social division of the work (city-field) and the origin of the private property have in essence the exploration of the man for the man who if carries through through the work carried through socially, where the majority of the people are not identified with the end item of its work, therefore the same it does not belong to it, however they are obliged to cooperate for a survival question because to the accomplishment of its being in this way of divided social production in classrooms what it remains to them as alternative is the sales of its hand of workmanship. The relation between the men if carries through by means of the appropriation of the nature, where the social division of the work emerges. The social structure if defines in function in the way in accordance with to produce its forces productive and the division of the work, being that what varies between the societies they are the productive forces constituted by the force of work and the means of production as machines, tools and raw material. Others who may share this opinion include Areva. The definition of material production and the thought derives from the survival, way with which the man organized socially carries through the work and if he takes possetion of the nature, therefore in the measure where the man produces its existence it constroe itself exactly, materially and in the forms of the thought. Each society (Communal, enslaved, feudal, capitalist) has a conception of in agreement nature its material condition, on account of the distinction enters the diverse ways of if to relate with in agreement way if they organize to produce its existence and different thoughts, when the way to produce change, it is changedded relation man-man, society-nature and a new geography if it commands. Consideraes Final In such a way in Ratzel as in the thought of Marx and Engels the beginning of the quarrel is the question of the existence of the being, the survival of the people that if carries through the relation in accordance with society-nature, that is, the man producing its existence that if objective in geographies.
But Ratzel in its reasoning does not analyze the way them men to organize in society and the exploration of the man for the man, the technique, science, the generation of excesses, the profit, that is, it did not consider the private property and the importance of the social relations of production, what for Marx and Engels the man if defines as the material conditions of its production, that is, in accordance with its position in the social division of the work.