The role of 'land' in capitalism is something that Marx placed a surprising emphasis on. They noted that revolution should go
"seriously from the ground up," from "land ownership," and often commented on the importance of land to revolution. Hence, despite a focus elsewhere, Marx saw this aspect of capital as a central one. This might seem to resemble the capitalistic struggle with 'feudalism,' however a socialist revolutionary seizure would no doubt have to face it differently. Marx also stressed that the landowner in capitalism acts on a different basis to that in feudalism, a different social basis altering it. Hence, this would set a different task.
Hence, let us briefly set out the roles of land ownership and capital in capitalism, by way of comparison. In capitalism, objects are reduced to expressions of abstract and social value, and hence their own nature is abstracted from. Land ownership in capitalism hence seeks to 'naturalise' this formulation of the object, or take the object as somehow 'inherently' reduced to bare value. This is of course absurd. They hence simply seek to vulgarise the nature of things. Due to their inability to deal with these things fully, they hence merely take forms and try to 'colonise' and run them in averse ways. Hence, 'land owners' as a class often rented off land to others, their own tendencies driving them away from this that they claimed. However, due to the absurdity of their task it was often a self-undermining pursuit - it hence required people who were often quite devoid of content, and even they might be insecure. Capital, on the other hand, dealt with this abstraction in terms of the social relations it gave rise to. Hence, the abstraction there appeared as part of a process.
In dealing with communism, people often claim to come across a sense of 'apathy' and 'skepticism.' This is in many ways false - how many aspects of culture actually manifest this claimed 'cynicism'? Nonetheless, this is how people embroiled in ideological illusion represent their relation to 'communism.' This is further mediated by their capitalistic viewpoint hindering their understanding of 'communism.' Eventually, then, this seems to say little on their part about communism. Nonetheless, the general orientation is closer to the function of the land owning class, a generic attempt to naturalise the mode of social relations. It is foreign to capital, which seeks to carry out this process and hence is far from 'apathetic' about how the social relations are formulated. Capital would hence be more 'anti-communist,' although this is merely a knee-jerk reaction and hence depends on what others opt to label their 'communism.' Hence, the vulgarisation of land somehow seems to 'usurp' capitalism here. However, there is also something murkier there. When this aspect of land ownership conflates itself with capital, what you have is not an advocacy of capitalism but of a 'rig.' In lieu of the capitalist process, you have an actually 'naturalised' social process posited where the land owner is the characteristic class. Instead of the abstractions appearing as part of a process, they are merely to be 'recognised' - hence, the 'social process' is reduced to a rigged enactment of this, not allowed to occur freely and as a process. It is hence not only anti-socialist, it is also dubious in its allegiance to capitalism.
Generally, 'socialist' organisations with a modus operandi harmonised with the system are similar: the capitalistic process is merely 'naturalised,' and seen as something they should 'adapt' to. This also applies to most socialist 'outreach,' where capitalistic tendencies are allowed to be the criterion of socialist expression. This hence often tends merely to end up in explicit liberalism. Socialism cannot express itself if it sets up capitalism as an authority over this expression - it then has no content.
Hence, Marx's comment criticises the class which represents the 'naturalised' form of capitalism's categories. Hence, they deal with a vision of revolution which stands against the 'value' nexus, or comes from outside of this process. This vision is not their usual, so it appears as an incidental adjunct of revolution. It is nonetheless a potentially profound category. Hence, when their critique in 'Das Kapital' begins from general categories, people often find this departure inexplicable. However, it is connected to this critique of 'landownership,' and hence it seeks to deal with the categories of capitalism and criticise them directly in their effect on things. As a result, people expect Marx to restrict themselves to a criticism of the process, which criticism they are associated with. Marx hence further attacks the arbitrary expropriation of things based on capitalism, or the assumption that this capitalistic reduction of things gives one authority over them. They hence also locate the 'authority' thus formed in the capitalistic society or as a social form, noting that it only appears as 'personal' form of authority due to the contradictory form of this society. Further, this society is hence made 'intrinsic' to the person, as is its contradiction; as a result, they are eventually torn asunder by this posited 'personal struggle.' Further, this approach hence explains their decision, in the 'final' chapter of volume 3, to stress 'landownership' in their criticism. It is in some ways a natural result of the opening: that it will culminate with the system being attacked fundamentally or the concept of revolution, further that this is connected to the 'landlord' category. To have a problem with Marx's choice of a categorical criticism is also to take issue with any revolutionary tendencies in Marx.
Hence, the criticism of 'landowners' is tied to the fundamental criticism made elsewhere. This has hopefully helped to clarify the significance of such criticism, and that it is not simply done arbitrarily.
