Based on this assumption, many economists are led astray and they conclude that an individual cannot have a substantial claim to what he has produced, because it is automatically to be owned by the society. Various items used by him during the production process such as tools, his know-how, soil, raw materials, nature, etc., all and all belong to the society as a whole. Therefore the idea of individual ownership is jettisoned altogether, because it has no infrastructural validity; but at the same time, collective ownership is deemed to be logical and dominant. The term "collective ownership" transcends national and time limits. And its perspective is wide enough to include the world community throughout the range of human history. This constitutes one of the important pillars of the socialist school of thought.
The theory, however, is as insipid and severe as the previous theory establishing the farmer as the sole indisputable owner of his produce. The theory of absolute collective ownership tramples upon the individual' s right to ownership and, therefore, runs counter to the theory of innate logic. It discounts the indispensable elements of individualism in the form of creativity, initiative and innovation. It holds no respect for the fact that individuals, with all their unique characteristics are directly or indirectly linked to a certain production. On the contrary, innate logic is accommodative towards the individual's unique contribution and gives due acknowledgment to it.
In a society with different types of people, not all turn out to be inventors. Even members of the same family imparted with uniform education, do not necessarily turn out to be the same. Intelligence, power of creativity and aptitude vary from individual to individual, and these elements act and react upon each other to determine the quality and intensity of their contribution to the society. Therefore we can proceed to say that an individual, even at a microscopic level, partakes in the changes brought about in a society.
To further reinforce our conviction, we can reason that out of two persons, exposed to identical milieu and learning process, only one may turn out to become a genius.
The question which may be raised at this level would be to prove that the two individuals concerned existed under exactly identical living circumstances. In our answer to this question, we can say that human individuals have undoubtly unique characteristics. Here, it would not be impertinent to take a passing view of the anthropological approaches adopted. There are three views in this field:
1. Individualism: The first view namely individualism treats the individual as an absolutely independent entity with no dependence whatsoever on external elements.
2. Philosophical Socialism: The second view called philosophical socialism propounds that an individual has no pristine qualities at all, and that he invariably owes his social accomplishments and activities to the society. What has real existence is the whole and the individual has no reality whatsoever. An individual constitutes a fraction of the whole, and what in reality is the whole or society only.
3. Combined View: The third school of thought is a state in between the two previous theories. It maintains that an individual human being is neither a hundred percent independent of his society, nor completely assimilated in it. He is a product of society influenced by the conditions prevailing in it, and simultaneously participates in and contributes his might to the development of the society.
The third theory has given birth to certain queries as to the extent and degree of interdependence between individuals and society. Accordingly different opinions which are not necessary to be discussed here, are expressed to gauge such interdependence.
Our logic initially assigns an irrefutable role to an individual in influencing creativity and innovation. Secondly, although an individual may be devoid of creativity and innovation, his performance in a work will turn out to be different from that of his counterparts, even if it amounts to repetition and deployment of his predecessors' past experience. Under identical climatic conditions such as the same quality and, amount of rainfall, same degree of sunshine, and the same quality of seeds and nutrition, three individual farmers would have diverse quality of yields representing different levels of productivity. One may be assiduous, the other may be sluggish and the third, mediocre in carrying out their task of harnessing the elements of nature. This means that individual characteristics differ from one person to another in exploiting natural factors.
Thus we can drive home this point: Our concerned farmer, owing to his unique level of productivity, can justifiably be entitled to a share out of the total output. At the same time his cultural background and also certain social conditions collectively had a bearing on his performance level.
Therefore such factors are also to be apportioned a share. In short the farmer, as well as his society, are the joint owners of the produce; and this stands as exemplary to innate logic with an infrastructural validity. The role of the elements, other than the farmer, in the production process could be direct or indirect and elaborations on this part will be made later on.