{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025780189959294438, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014925373134328358, 'mean_word_length': 4.951612903225806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Appropriation of Nature [1]

In the first part of this article (Godelier, M. 1978, pp399-421) we have only outlined a provisional inventory of some forms of the appropriation of territory and natural and humanly-altered resources. We have purposely grouped them into broad systems of the exploitation of nature, into modes of ’subsistence’ and not modes of ’production’. The mode of production of a society is primarily characterized by the social relations which determine the forms of access to resources and the means of production, organize the labour processes and determine the distribution and circulation of the products of social labour. Of these three functions of the relations of production, we have only dealt with a few