This paper in based upon a criticism of the conceptions of property in the works of Locke, Rousseau and Marx. Of this criticism, it comes out that the conceptions of these three authors are more moral than theoritical, that their argumentation adheres to a moral of the nature. « Moralization » occurs when they make a link — supposedly natural — between property and satisfaction of individual needs. From there they come to support that true property is the one which enables satisfaction of individual needs. Against this proposition, it is then demonstrated that equivalence between property and « naturality » it theoriticaly impossible and that the subject of property is not the individual, but the Other, the socius.