The Marxist Theory of Alienation - George Novack, Ernest Mandel (1973)

Contents
INTRODUCTION
by George N ovack
THE CAUSES OF ALIENA TIO N
by Ernest Mandel
PROGRESSIVE DISALIENATION
THROUGH THE BUILDING OF
SOCIALIST SOCIETY, OR THE
INEVITABLE ALIEN A TIO N IN
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY?
by Ernest Mandel
THE PROBLEM OF ALIENA TIO N
by George N ovack
5
13
31
53
In tro d u c tio n
The problem of alienation as a condition of m odern m an

has now adays become an alm ost obsessive concern in
areas of cultural activity ran g in g from literature and
the plastic arts to sociology and philosophy. The isolated
individual, like the central figure in The Stranger by
Albert Camus, estranged from other people and even
from his own deepest self and emotions, is a fam iliar
character in all branches of contem porary writing.
The sam e kind of loner or outsider, divorced from
an uncaring w orld and pitted by m align fate against
it, will be found as the hero, or antihero, of plays by
Beckett, Ionesco, Genet and others of lesser talent and
renown. The cinematic productions of such directors as
Bergman and Fellini p o rtra y individuals with disinte
grated personalities totally absorbed in themselves and
tormented by an intense loneliness and inability to com
municate with others.
The theme of alienation h as filtered from van g u ard
circles into p o p u la r songs which have reached large seg
ments of youth. Witness these lines from Simon and Garfunkel's I A m a Rock:
" . . . 7 h ave m y books and m y poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in m y armor, hiding in m y room.
Safe within m y wom b. I touch no one
And no one touches me.
I am a rock, I am an island.
And a rock can feel no pain:
And an island never cries. "*
Millions of less articulate folk share the sentiments of
alienation portrayed by so m any gifted writers and senc o p y r i g h t 1965 b y Paul Sim on. Used with the perm ission
of C haring C ross Music, Inc.
M arxist Theory o f Alienation
sitive artists of our day. This is certified by the multi

tude of sociological studies m ade of the characteristics
of the "lonely crowd," those aggregations of atomized
city dwellers who feel crushed and benum bed by the weight
of a social system in which they have neither significant
purpose nor decision-m aking power.
The b ro a d attention focused on the condition of aliena
tion shows that we are confronted by the sym ptom s of a
m orbid and acute social sickness. The three essays in
this book undertake to analyze that endemic condition
of capitalism from the M arxist point of view.
Other philosophies also attem pt to deal with the problem
of alienation from their special standpoints. Existentialism,
for exam ple, teaches that alienation is built into the very
n ature of m an as an enigm atic castaw ay on this planet.
W hatever he m ay do to overcom e that state, bo rn of
an aw areness of the m eaninglessness of existence, he can
find no exit from his fate.
M arxism on the other h a n d does not believe in the
eternity of alienation an y m ore than it believes in eternal
d am nation. This state is not an inescapable and irre
m ediable curse of m ankind. A lienation is the outgrow th
of specific historical conditions which have been brought
into existence by m a n 's unw itting activity and which can
be changed at a higher stage of economic and social
developm ent by m a n 's conscious collective action.
M arxism does agree with existentialism on one point:
the torm enting form s of alienation suffered by men and
w omen today disclose extremely significant aspects of
their lives which call for a theoretical explanation and
a realistic rem edy. The m ethod of explanation offered
by M arxism for this calam itous condition and the course
of action recom m ended to alleviate it are, however, square
ly opposed to the prem ises and conclusions of either ex
istentialism or any religious creed. Instead of a m eta
physical o r theological answer, M arxism gives a scientific,
an historical m aterialist analysis of the origins and growth
of alienation. It further presents a revolutionary political
p ro g ram for the w orking class to achieve its reduction
and eventual abolition.
M any liberal thinkers view alienation as essentially a
Introduction
psychological phenom enon. This is a superficial approach.

Although alienation has its psychological side and path
ological effects, as Erich From m has pointed out in his
book The Sane Society it is not prim arily or purely
of psychic origin and location. Its roots go far back
into h um an history; the causes of its current manifes
tations are embedded in the innerm ost constitution of
class society.
Alienation is an historically created phenom enon. Its
origin and continuing basis in civilized society arises
from the alienation of labor which characterizes all sys
tems of private property from slavery to capitalism. Alien
ation expresses the fact that the creations of m en's hands
and minds turn against their creators and come to dom
inate their lives. Thus, instead of enlarging freedom, these
uncontrollable powers increase hum an servitude and strip
men of the capacities for self-determination and self-di
rection which have raised them above the anim als.
F or M arxism the form s of alienation are products of
m an 's impotence before the forces of nature and of so
ciety and his ignorance of the laws of their operation.
They are not everlasting. They can dim inish to the ex
tent that m a n 's control over his habitat and his social
relations and his scientific knowledge of their processes
of development are amplified. They will wither aw ay and
cease entirely when his com m and over nature and social
organization is consum m ated under socialism.
The causes of existing alienation are rooted in cap
italism which was bo rn and bred in the dispossession
of the w orking m asses from the means of production
and the consequent alienation of wage labor. In the fur
ther course of development this system keeps reproducing
the conditions of alienation m ore extensively on all levels
of social existence. C ontem porary m onopoly capitalism
has so intensified and universalized the conditions of alien
ation that its consequences have spread like an unfilterable virus throughout the whole social organism .
Since alienation in class society is based on the expro
priation and exploitation of the la b o r force, the nature
of this deep-seated disease points to the direction of its
cure. It can only be eliminated if the unity of the workers

with the m eans of their labor is restored, not by reverting
to any form of prim itivism, but by incorporating the
highest achievements of science, technology and industry
into a collectivized mode of production.
This can only be done through a socialist revolution
which will establish a regime based upon a nationalized
economy operated under the dem ocratic control of the
w orkers themselves. The new w orld order issuing from
such a fundam ental reconstruction of hum an relations
can create the conditions for eradicating the forms of
alienation inherited from the b a rb a ro u s past.
Now there are not only capitalist but also postcapitalist
countries on this planet. F ourteen w orkers' states have been
established between 1917 and 1973. If alienation is the
outcome of capitalist conditions of life and labor, do
the phenom ena of alienation also exist in these noncap
italist societies? And if so, how are they to be accounted
for? What factors are responsible for their recurrence?
F or decades Stalin and his successors denied that any
sort of alienations could be found in Soviet society; they
permitted only "nonantagonistic contradictions" to exist.
A ccording to the official m ythology, there were occasional
frictions an d incidental m aladjustm ents, but no serious
social tensions or irreconcilable conflicts were possible
o r observable. Since 1956 the outbursts of opposition
in the Soviet bloc, and the assertion of antibureaucratic
criticisms despite h arsh censorship in the Soviet Union
itself, hav e exposed the reality behind the ideological fa
cade fabricated by the Stalinist apologists.
The problem of the contradictions within the postcapi
talist regimes has now become the subject of intense and
agonizing inquiry throughout the Comm unist world. A
debate aro u n d the question of alienation has been un
folding within intellectual and political circles there for a
decade an d a half without arriv in g at any conclusive
results.
The theoretical problem is posed in the following terms.
O rthodox M arxism taught that alienation is the product
of class society and capitalist exploitation. Stalinism as
serted that alienation w as im possible and absent in the
countries which h a d overthrow n capitalist rule. Yet, in
Introduction
defiance of both these positions, m alignant manifestations

of alienation have cropped up and persist in the countries
with a socialist economic base. Why has this happened?
How is this discrepancy between the expectations of so
cialist theory and the facts of life to be explained?
It was logical that Y ugoslav intellectuals should raise
these questions first and most sharply, because their coun
try was the first to break aw ay from Moscow's monolithic
grip. From Y ugoslavia the controversy has spread
throughout East Europe, except for Albania where the
old Stalinist dogm atism with the added stam p of M ao's
endorsem entcontinues to reign unchallenged.
I shall limit my citations on this point to the foremost
Comm unist philosophers: Georg Lukacs of H ungary,
Adam Schaff of Poland, and Roger G araudy of France.
All three have acknowledged, not only that alienation is
rife in the w orkers' states, but also that this fact poses
a prim e challenge to M arxist theory.
Lukacs has asserted, som ew hat paradoxically, that alien
ation is the m ost prom ising of all subjects for Communist
writers. This reversal of values which horrifies the g u ard
ians of "socialist realism" would have brought harsh pen
alties down upon him in Stalin's time. The H ungarian
critic further advised Comm unist writers to look at the
work of their Western counterparts. "They must learn
how the best writers are fighting against alienation. In
the end, we shall find political allies am ong them. It is
the task of literature to paint a picture of the enorm ous
alienation that was the product of the Stalinist era, and
to help in overcom ing it," he said.
Adam Schaff, the leading Polish Comm unist philoso
pher and a member of the p arty 's central committee from
1959 until his expulsion from that body in 1968, pub
lished a highly controversial book on M arxism and the
In d ivid u a l in 1965. In it he propounded the thesis that
the abolition of private property does not signify the
end of all forms of alienation but only of some of them.
"Socialism h a s not completely overcom e any one of the
know n form s of alienation not even the economic one,"
he wrote. Schaff even argues, quite w rongly, that a so
cialist society will retain certain kinds of alienation be
10
cause of the complex tasks and extensive adm inistra

tive ap p a ra tu s necessarily bound up with the specialization
of labor.
Roger G araudy, long the philosophical bellwether of
the French CP and a member of its Politburo, set foot
on the ro ad to unorthodoxy in 1963 at an international
conference on F ran z K afka held in Czechoslovakia: "What
does K afka tell us today and w hat m akes his w ork a liv
ing thing?" he asked. "K afka fought against alienation with
out being able to overcom e it. Therefore, K afka's w ork
is of im mediate interest for the capitalist w orld in which
people live in alienation. It is, however, also of imme
diate interest for the socialist world, because socialism
is the beginning of the fight against alienation, for a to
tal m an, but it does not abolish all forms of estrange
ment. As long as the com m unist society has not been
built up, roots of v ario u s form s of alienation continue
to exist in socialism." G arau d y w as finally expelled from
the French CP in 1971.
It is u n d erstandable why all three of these heterodox
thinkers h ave come into open conflict with the neo-Stalinist
bureaucracies in their countries.
It m ust be considered a big step forw ard when ideo
logues of such standing rem ove the blinders from their
eyes and look squarely at the actual alienations which
the peoples themselves know only too well. However,
up to now, none of the thinkers educated in the school
of Stalinism h as gone very far in providing a correct
elucidation along M arxist lines of the origins and basis
of this state of affairs. The essays in this book do
u ndertake such a task of clarification. They indicate w hat
the sources of alienation in the deformed or degenerated
w orkers' states are, and also, in accord with the m andate
of M arxism as a guide to action, they point out the ways
and m eans by which these can be removed.
An autocratic political structure and a bureaucratic
m anagem ent of the economy are the twin pillars of the
alienation inflicted on the w orking masses under the post
capitalist regimes. The prescription for curing these evils
can be nothing less than complete dem ocratic control of the
governm ent and economy by the w orkers through their
Introduction
11
freely elected councils. Such a salutary change from

bureaucratic despotism to a socialist dem ocracy is the in
evitable next stage of political progress of the workers'
states. It has been foreshadowed by the effort of progressive
Czechoslovakian Communists to give socialism "a hum an
face" the effort which was crushed in 1968 by the
K rem lin's troops and tanks.
The grow ing outcries against alienation are directed
against the intolerable tyranny of the uncontrolled bureau
cracies. The w orkers along with the intellectuals, youth,
and peasants of these countries will have to conquer through
their own direct action the full exercise of the democratic
rights and rulership which the p ro g ram s of M arx and
Lenin prom ised but which are denied them under Kosygin
and Brezhnev as they were under Stalin and Khrushchev.
GEORGE NOVACK
The Causes o f A lie n a tio n

by Ernest M a n d e l
It was by studying Hegel that M arx first came across

the concept of alienation. But, oddly enough, it was not
the theory of alienated la b o r that he originally picked up
from Hegel's works. It was the alienation of m an as a
citizen in his relationship with the state that became the
starting point of M arx's philosophical, political and social
thought.
The social contract theory m aintained that in organized
society the individual m ust forfeit a certain num ber of
individual rights to the state as the representative of the
collective interest of the com munity. Hegel especially had
developed this idea which was so strongly enunciated by
the theoreticians of the n atu ral rights philosophy. That
also served as the starting point of M arx's critique of
Hegel an d his beginning as a critical social thinker in
general.
Some sm all incidents which happened in the Rhine
province of western G erm any aro u n d 1842-43 (the increase
in the num ber of people who stole w ood and the interven
tion of the governm ent against these people) led M arx
to conclude that the state, which p urports to represent the
collective interest, instead represented the interests of only
one p a rt of the society, that is to say, those who own
13
14
private property. Therefore the forfeiture of individual

rights to that state represented a phenom enon of aliena
tion: the loss of rights by people to institutions which
were in reality hostile to them.
Starting from that political-philosophical platform , M arx,
who in the m eantime h ad been expelled from G erm any
an d h ad gone into exile in France, got in contact with the
first socialist and w orkers organizations there and began
to study economics, especially the classical writers of British
political economy, the A dam Smith-Ricardo school. This
was the b ackground for M arx's first attempt in 1844 at
a synthesis of philosophical and economic ideas in the
so-called Econom ic a n d Philosophic M anuscripts o f 1844,
also called the Parisian M anuscripts. This was an attempt
to integrate his ideas about la b o r in bourgeois society
with ideas about the fate of m an, m a n 's position in history,
a n d his existence on earth.
This initial youthful attem pt at synthesis w as carried out
with very inadequate means. At that period M arx did not
yet hav e a thorough knowledge of political economy; he
h a d only started to acquaint him self with some of the basic
notions of the classical school in political economy; and he
h a d little direct or indirect experience with the m odern in
d ustrial system. He w ould obtain all that only during the
next ten years.
This unfinished early w ork w as unknow n for a very
lo n g time. It w as first published in 1932, nearly one hun
d red years after it w as written. A ccordingly, much of the
discussion which h ad been going on in economic as well
as philosophic circles, about w hat he thought in his youth
an d how he arrived at a certain num ber of his basic
concepts, w as very much distorted by an ignorance of
this specific la n d m ark in his intellectual development.
Im m ature as parts of it m ight seem and are, especially
the economic part, it nevertheless represents a m ajor
tu rning point both in M arx's intellectual development and
in the intellectual history of m ankind. Its im portance, which
I will try to explain, is linked with the concept of aliena
tion.
Alienation is a very old idea which has religious origins
and is alm ost as old as organized religion itself. It was
The Causes o f Alienation
15
taken over by nearly all the classical philosophical trends

in the West as in the East. This concept turns around
what one could call the tragic fate of man. Hegel, who
was one of the greatest German philosophers, took over
the idea from his predecessors but gave it a new slant
and a new basis which denoted mom entous progress. He
did this by changing the foundation of that concept of the
tragic fate of m an from a vague anthropological and
philosophical concept into a concept rooted in labor.
Hegel, before M arx, said that m an is alienated because
hum an la b o r is alienated. He gave two explanations for
this general alienation of hum an labor. One is w hat he
called the dialectics of need and labor. H um an needs, he
said, are always one step ahead of the available economic
resources; people will therefore always be condemned to
w ork very h a rd to fulfill unsatisfied needs. However, the
attempt to equalize the organization of m aterial resources
with the necessity of satisfying all hum an needs is an
im possible task, a goal which can never be attained.
That was one aspect of w hat Hegel called alienated labor.
The other side of his philosophical analysis was a bit
m ore complicated. It is sum m arized in a difficult word,
the w ord "externalization" ( E ntausserung). Though the
term is complicated and sounds foreign, its content is
easier to understand. Hegel m eant by the philosophical
concept of externalization the fact that every m an who
w orks, who produces something, really reproduces in
his w ork an idea which he initially had in his head. Some
of you m ight be astonished if I im mediately add that M arx
shared that opinion. You will find this same idea, that
any w ork which m an perform s lives in his head before
being realized in m aterial reality, in the first chapter of
Capital. Hegel, as well as M arx, thereby drew a basic
distinction between people and, let us say, ants or other
creatures which seem to be busily at work but do things
purely on instinct. Man, on the other hand, first develops
an idea about w hat he aims to do and then tries to realize
that idea.
Hegel goes a step farther when he asks, w hat do we do
in reality when we try to express, in m aterial, w hat first
lives in us as an idea? We inevitably separate ourselves
16
from the product of our labor. A nything which we project

out of ourselves, anything which we fabricate, anything
which we produce, we project out of o ur own body and it
becomes separate from us. It cannot rem ain as much
p a rt and parcel of ou r being as an idea which continues
to live in o ur head. That was for Hegel the m ain, let us
say, anthropological, definition of alienated labor. He
therefore arrived at the conclusion that every and any
kind of la b o r is alienated la b o r because in any society
and under any conditions men will alw ays be condemned
to become separated from the products of their labor.
When M arx takes up these two definitions of alienated
la b o r given by Hegel, he contradicts both of them. He
says that the discrepancy between needs and m aterial
resources, the tension between needs and labor, is a limited
one, conditioned by history. It is not true that m an's
needs can develop in an unlimited w ay or that the out
put of his collective la b o r will alw ays rem ain inferior to
these needs. He denies this m ost em phatically on the basis
of a historical analysis. He especially rejects Hegel's ideal
istic identification of externalization with alienation. M arx
says that when we separate ourselves from the product
of o u r la b o r it does not necessarily follow that the product
of o u r la b o r then oppresses us o r that any m aterial forces
whatsoever turn against men. Such alienation is not the
result of the projection of things out of o u r body as
such, which first live in us as ideas and then take on a
m aterial existence as objects, as products of our labor.
A lienation results from a certain form of organization of
society. More concretely, only in a society which is based
on com m odity production and only under the specific
economic and social circum stances of a m arket economy,
can the objects which we project out of us when we pro
duce acquire a socially oppressive existence of their own
an d be integrated in an economic and social mechanism
which becomes oppressive and exploitative of hum an be
ings.
The trem endous advance in hum an thought which I
referred to in this critique of Hegel consists in the fact
that M arx rejects the idea of the alienation of labor as
being an an thropological characteristic, that is, an inherent
17
and ineradicable curse of m ankind. He says that the

alienation of labor is not bound to hum an existence in
all places and for all future time. It is a specific result
of specific forms of social and economic organization.
In other words, M arx transform s Hegel's notion of alien
ated lab o r from an eternal anthropological notion into a
transitory historical notion.
This reinterpretation carries a message of hope for
hum anity. M arx says that hum anity is not condemned
to live "by the sweat of its brow" under alienated conditions
throughout its whole term on earth. It can become free,
its lab o r can become free, it is capable of self-emancipa
tion, though only under specific historical conditions. Later
I will define w hat specific social and economic conditions
are required for the disappearance of alienated labor.
Let us now pass from the first systematic exposition of
his theory of alienation in the Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts o f 1844 to his m ain work, Capital, which
was published over twenty years later. It is true that the
word alienation hardly appears there.
A new profession has sprung up in the last thirty years
which is called "M arxology." Its practitioners read through
the w orks of M arx and put on sm all index cards all the
words he uses in his books and then try to draw some
conclusions about his thought from their philological statis
tics. Some people have even used com puters in this type
of form al analysis. These "M arx-philologists" have so far
discovered six places in Capital where the w ord "alienation"
is used either as a noun or as a verb. I certainly will
not dispute that colossal discovery though som ebody m ay
find a seventh spot or there could be some dispute about
the sixth one.
On the basis of such an analysis of Capital, done in
a purely verbal and superficial way, it could be concluded
that the m ature M arx did not have a real theory of aliena
tion. M arx would then have discarded it after his youth,
after his im m ature development, especially when, around
1856-57, he became thoroughly convinced of the correct
ness of the la b o r theory of value and perfected that labor
theory of value himself.
When the Econom ic and Philosophic Manuscripts o f
18
1844 were published for the first time in 1932, a big

controversy arose aro u n d these issues. At least three trends
can be distinguished in the debate. I will not cite the nam es
of all the authors who have participated in it since more
th an a hundred people have written on the subject and
the controversy is far from having ended. Some said
there is a contradiction between the youthful and the m a
ture works and M arx abandoned his original theories
when his own views were fully developed.
Others said the opposite. The real M arx is to be found
in the youthful w orks and he later degenerated by re
stricting the scope of his understanding to purely eco
nomic problem s. He thus fell victim to the deviation of
economism.
Still other people tried to deny that M arx's ideas under
went any significant o r substantial evolution whatsoever.
A m ong these are the A merican Erich From m , the French
M arxist scholar M aximilien Rubel, and two French Cath
olic priests, F athers Bigo and Calvez. They m aintain
that the sam e ideas are contained in his early as in his
later works.
I think all three of these opinions are w rong. There
was an im portant evolution, not an identical repetition,
in M arx's thought from decade to decade. Any person
who thinks, and continues to think and live, will not
say exactly the sam e thing when he is sixty as when
he was twenty-five. Even if it is conceded that the basic
concepts rem ain the same, there is obviously some pro
gress, some change. In this concrete case the evolution
is all the m ore striking, as I said before, because the
M arx of 1844 h a d not yet accepted the la b o r theory of
value which is a cornerstone of the economic theory he
developed ten or fifteen years later.
One of the pivotal questions in this continuing debate
is whether the m ature M arx held a theory of alienation
o r whether he altogether abandoned his original theory
of alienation. This dispute, which can be resolved on
a docum entary basis, would not have gone on so long
and inconclusively if it h ad not been for another unfor
tunate accident.
It happened that another m ajo r w ork of M arx, Grun-
19
drisse der K ritik der Politischen O konom ie (Fundam ental

Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy), a thirteenhundred-page work written in 1857-58, which is a kind
of la b o rato ry where all the m ajor ideas of Capital were
first elaborated and tested, was also not published until
a century after it was written. Its first publication occurred
at the beginning of the second world w ar in Russia, but
most of the copies were destroyed as a result of the war.
I believe only two copies arrived in the United States
and none were available in Western Europe. The Rus
sians under Stalin were not eager to reproduce it a second
time. Thus it was not until the nineteen-fifties, almost
a century after it h ad been originally written, that the
book was reprinted and became known to a certain num
ber of experts in a few countries.
Unfortunately, only in the last year have portions of
this m ajo r w ork of M arx been translated into English.
It appeared in French only a short time ago. So some
of the participants in this dispute did have the excuse
that they did not know that key work. F or anybody
who reads it can at once see that a M arxist theory of
alienation exists because in the Grundrisse the word, the
concept, and the analysis appear dozens and dozens of
times.
What then is this theory of alienation as it was developed
by the m ature M arx, not by the young M arx? And how
can we relate it to w hat is set down in Capital? There is
first a purely form al difficulty here because M arx uses
three different terms in this connection and he uses them
in an interchangeable m anner. One is the concept of alien
ation; another is the concept of reification, a complicated
word; and a third is the concept of com modity fetishism,
which is still m ore complicated. However, these three con
cepts are not so difficult to explain, and I will try to
clarify their m eaning for you.
Let us start this analysis with a definition of economic
alienation. I must immediately state that in the com pre
hensive M arxist theory of alienation, economic aliena
tion is only one p a rt of a much more general phenom
enon which covers practically all fields of hum an activity
in class society. But it is the most decisive element. So
20
let's start from economic alienation. We will approach

it in successive stages. The first and m ost striking feature
of economic alienation is the separation of people from
free access to the m eans of production and means of
subsistence. This is a rather recent development in hum an
history. As late as the nineteenth century free access to
the m eans of production in agriculture survived in some
countries of the world, am ong others, in the United States
and C an ad a. Until after the A m erican Civil W ar it was
not im possible for m asses of people to find some unpre
empted spot of land and to establish themselves on that
acreage as free farm ers, as hom esteaders. In Europe that
possibility h a d ceased to exist for two hundred years,
and in some countries there even three or four hundred
y ears earlier.
T hat historical factor is the starting point for any theory
of alienation because the institution of w age la b o r in
which people are forced to sell their la b o r power to an
other person, to their em ployer, can come into existence
on a larg e scale only when and where free access to the
m eans of production and subsistence is denied to an im
p o rta n t p a rt of society. Thus the first precondition for
the alienation of la b o r occurs when la b o r becomes sep
arated from the basic m eans of production and subsistence.
I said this is a relatively new phenom enon. A second
exam ple m ay illum inate this m ore sharply. The classical
historical criticism m ade by liberal thought in the nine
teenth century about the society of the middle ages, feudal
society, w as the lack of freedom of the cultivators of the
soil. I w on't take exception to that criticism which I think
w as correct. The direct producers in that society, the peas
ants an d serfs, were not free people. They could not move
ab o u t freely; they were tied to the land.
But w hat the bourgeois liberal critics of feudal society
forgot w as that tying people to the land was a two-sided
phenom enon. If a person w as tied to the land, the land
w as also tied to the person. And because the land was
tied to the person there w asn't any im portant p a rt of
the people living within feudal relations who could be
forced to become w age lab o rers and sell their la b o r power
to owners of capital. They h ad access to the land, they
21
could produce their own m eans of subsistence and keep

part of it for themselves. Only people outside organized
feudal society, in reality outlaws, because that is what
they were originally, could become the starting point for
new social classes w age laborers on the one hand, mer
chants on the other.
The second stage in the alienation of labor came about
when p art of society was driven off the land, no longer
had access to the m eans of production and m eans of
subsistence, and, in order to survive, was forced to sell
its lab o r power on the market. That is the m ain char
acteristic of alienated labor. In the economic field it is
the institution of wage labor, the economic obligation
of people who cannot otherwise survive to sell the only
com modity they possess, their la b o r power, on the labor
market.
What does it m ean to sell yo u r la b o r power to a boss?
In M arx's analysis, both in his youthful and his m ature
work, behind this purely form al and legal contractual
relationyou sell your la b o r power, p art of your time,
to another for money to live on is in reality something
of deepgoing consequence for all hum an existence and
particularly for the life of the wage laborer. It first of
all implies that you lose control over a large p a rt of your
waking hours. All the time which you have sold to the
em ployer belongs to him, not to you. You are not free
to do w hat you w ant at work. It is the em ployer who
dictates w hat you will and will not do during this whole
time. He will dictate w hat you produce, how you pro
duce it, where you produce it. He will be m aster over
your activity.
And the more the productivity of la b o r increases and
the shorter the workweek becomes, the stricter will be
the control of the em ployer over every hour of your time
as a wage laborer. In time and m otion studies the ul
timate and m ost perfected form of this control the boss
even tries to control every second, literally every second,
of the time which you spend in his employ.
A lienation thereupon acquires a third form. When a
w age earner has sold his la b o r power for a certain p art
of his life to his employer, the products of his la b o r are
22
not his own. The products of his la b o r become the pro p

erty of the employer.
The fact that the m odern w age earner owns none of
the products of his own labor, obvious as it m ay ap
p ear to people who are accustomed to bourgeois society,
is not at all so self-evident from the viewpoint of hum an
h istory as a whole. It w as not like that for thousands
upon thousands of years of hum an existence. Both the
m edieval h andicraftsm an and the handicraftsm an of an
tiquity were the proprietors of their own products. The
peasant, and even the serf of the middle ages, rem ained
in possession of at least 50 per cent, sometimes 60 and
70 per cent, of the output of their own labor.
Under capitalism not only does the wage earner lose
possession of the product of his labor, but these products
can function in a hostile and injurious m anner against
him. This happened with the machine. This rem arkable
product of hum an ingenuity becomes a source of tyranny
ag ain st the w orker when the w orker serves as an appen
dage of the m achine and is forced to ad ap t the cadence
of his life and w ork to the operation of the machine. This
can become a serious source of alienation in shift work
when p a rt of the w orking class has to w ork during the
night o r at odd hours in conflict with the norm al rhythm
of h u m an life between d ay and night. Such an abnorm al
schedule causes all sorts of psychological and nervous
disorders.
A nother aspect of the oppressive nature which the pro d
ucts of la b o r can acquire once society is divided into
hostile classes of capitalists and wage w orkers are the
crises of overproduction, depressions or, as it is now adays
m ore prudently put, recessions. Then people consume
less because they produce too much. And they consume
less, not because their la b o r is inadequately productive,
but because their la b o r is too productive.
We come now to a final form of alienated labor in
the economic field which derives from the conclusions
of the points I have noted. The alienation of the w orker
an d his la b o r m eans that som ething basic has changed
in the life of the w orker. What is it? N orm ally everybody
h as some creative capacity, certain talents lodged in him,
23
untapped potentialities for hum an development which

should be expressed in his labor activity.
However, once the institution of wage labor is prevalent,
these possibilities become nullified. Work is no longer
a means of self-expression for anybody who sells his
labor time. Work is just a m eans to attain a goal. And
that goal is to get money, some income to be able to
buy the consumer goods necessary to satisfy your needs.
In this w ay a basic aspect of hum an nature, the ca
pacity to perform creative work, becomes thwarted and
distorted. Work becomes som ething which is not creative
and productive for hum an beings but something which
is harm ful and destructive. Catholic priests and Protestant
pastors who have w orked in factories in Western Europe,
the so-called "worker-priests," who have written books
about their experiences, have arrived at conclusions on
this point that are absolutely identical with those of M arx
ism. They declare that a w age earner considers the hours
passed in factories or in offices as time lost from his life.
He must spend time there in order to get freedom and
capacity for hum an development outside the sphere of
production and of work.
Ironically, this hope for fulfillment during leisure time
turns out to be an illusion. M any hum anitarian and phi
lanthropic reformers of liberal or social-democratic per
suasion in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twen
tieth centuries thought that men could become liberated
when their leisure time would increase. They did not under
stand that the nature of leisure w as likewise determined
by the nature of w age la b o r and by the conditions of
a society based on com m odity production and wage labor.
Once socially necessary la b o r time became shorter and
leisure time greater, a com m ercialization of leisure took
place. The capitalist society of com modity production,
the so-called "consumer society" did its utm ost to integrate
leisure time into the totality of economic phenom ena at
the basis of com m odity production, exploitation and ac
cum ulation.
At this point the notion of alienation is extended from
a purely economic to a bro ad er social phenom enon. The
first bridge to this wider application is the concept of
24
alienation of the consumer. Thus far we have spoken

only ab o u t the consequences of alienated labor. But one
of the card inal characteristics of capitalist society, as M arx
understood as early as 1844, is its built-in contradiction
reg ard in g hum an needs. On the one hand, each capitalist
entrepreneur tries to limit the hum an needs of his own
w age earners as much as possible by p aying as little
w ages as possible. Otherwise he would not m ake enough
profit to accumulate.
On the other hand, each capitalist sees in the work
force of all the other capitalists not w age earners but
potential consum ers. He w ould therefore like to expand
the capacity of consum ption of these other wage earners
to the limit o r otherwise he cannot increase production
a n d sell w hat his own w orkers produce. Thus capitalism
h as a tendency to constantly extend the needs of people.
Up to a certain point this expansion can cover genuine
h u m an needs, such as the elem entary requirements of
feeding, h ousing and clothing everybody in m ore or less
decent circumstances. Very quickly, however, capitalism
in its efforts to com mercialize everything and sell as m any
gadgets as possible, goes beyond any rational hum an
needs and starts to spur and stim ulate artificial needs in
a systematic, large-scale m anner. Some of these are absurd
an d grotesque. Let me give one example. An A merican
author, Jessica Mitford, h as written an am using book,
called The Am erican Way o f Death. It describes the p rac
tices of m orticians who seek to induce people to buy m ore
expensive coffins so that the beloved dead can rest not
only peacefully, but lightly, on foam mattresses. The sales
pitchmen say this satisfies, not the corpse, but the feelings
of the consum er.
Is it necessary to observe that no real need is involved
in this grotesque attem pt of the burial business to m ake
m oney? It is scandalous to feed in this m ercenary m anner
upon the feelings of grief of people who have lost members
of their family.
Such alienation is no longer purely economic but has
become social and psychological in nature. F or w hat
is the m otivation of a system for constantly extending
needs beyond the limits of w hat is rational? It is to create,
25
purposely and deliberately, perm anent and meretricious

dissatisfactions in hum an beings. Capitalism would cease
to exist if people were fully and healthily satisfied. The
system must provoke continued artificial dissatisfaction
in hum an beings because w ithout that dissatisfaction the
sales of new gadgets which are m ore and more divorced
from genuine hum an needs cannot be increased.
A society which is turned tow ard creating systematic
frustration of this kind generates the bad results recorded
in the crime pages of the daily newspapers. A society
which breeds worthless dissatisfaction will also breed all
kinds of antisocial attempts to overcome this dissatisfac
tion.
Beyond this alienation of hum an beings as consumers,
there are two very im portant aspects of alienation. One
is the alienation of hum an activity in general. The other
is the alienation of hum an beings in one of their most
fundam ental features, the capacity to communicate.
What is m eant by the extension of the concept of alien
ation to h um an activity in general? We live in a society
based on com modity production and a social division
of la b o r pushed to the limits of overspecialization. As a
result, people in a particular jo b or doing a certain type
of activity for a living will incline to have an extremely
n arrow horizon. They will be prisoners of their trade,
seeing only the problem s and preoccupations of their
specialty. They will also tend to have a restricted social
and political aw areness because of this limitation.
Along with this shut-in horizon will go som ething which
is much worse, the tendency to transform relations be
tween hu m an beings into relations between things. This
is that fam ous tendency tow ard "reification," the trans
form ation of social relations into things, into objects,
of which M arx speaks in Capital.
This w ay of looking at phenom ena is an extension
of this theory of alienation. Here is an exam ple of this
transform ation which I witnessed the other day in this
country. The waiters and w aitresses in restaurants are
p o o r w orking people who are the victims and not the
authors of this process of reification. They are even un
aw are of the nature of their involvem ent in this phenom
26
enon. While they are under heavy pressure to serve the

m axim um num ber of custom ers on the job imposed upon
them by the system and its owners, they look upon the
custom ers solely under the form of the orders they put
in. I h eard one waitress address herself to a person and
say, "Ah, you are the corned-beef and cabbage." You
are not Mr. or Mrs. Brown, not a person of a certain
age and with a certain address. You are "corned-beef
an d cabbage" because the w aitress has on her mind the
o rd ers taken under stress from so m any people.
This h abit of reification is not the fault of the inhu
m anity o r insensitivity of the w orkers. It results from
a certain type of hum an relation rooted in com modity
production and its extreme division of la b o r where people
engaged in one trade tend to see their fellows only as
custom ers or through the lenses of w hatever economic
relations they have with them.
This outlook finds expression in everyday language.
I h ave been told that in the city of O saka, the m ain com
m ercial an d industrial capital of Jap an , the com m on mode
of ad d ressing people when you meet is not "how do you
do?" but "how is business?" o r "are you m aking money?"
This signifies that bourgeois economic relations have so
completely pervaded o rd in a ry h um an relations as to de
hum anize them to an appreciable extent.
I now come to the ultim ate an d m ost tragic form of
alienation, which is alienation of the capacity to com
municate. The capacity to com m unicate has become the
m ost fundam ental attribute of m an, of his quality as
a h u m a n being. Without com m unication, there can be
no o rganized society because w ithout com m unication, there
is no language, and w ithout language, there is no in
telligence. C apitalist society, class society, com m odity-pro
ducing society tends to thw art, divert and partially destroy
this basic h um an capacity.
Let me give three exam ples of this process at three
different levels, starting with a m ost com m onplace case.
How do people learn to com m unicate? While they are
infants they go through w hat psychologists call a pro
cess of socialization and learn to speak. F o r a long time
one of the m ain m ethods of socializing young children
27
has been through playing with dolls. When children play

with dolls, they duplicate themselves, project themselves
outside their own individuality, and carry on a dialogue
with that other self. They speak two languages, their
own language and the language of the doll, thereby bring
ing into play an artificial process of com munication which,
through its spontaneous nature, facilitates the develop
ment of lan guage and intelligence.
Recently, industry started to produce dolls which speak.
This is supposed to be a m ark of progress. But once
the doll speaks, the dialogue is limited. The child no
longer speaks in two languages, or with the same spon
taneity. Part of its speech is induced, and induced by
some capitalist corporation.
That corporation m ay have hired the biggest educators
and psychologists who m ake the doll speak more per
fectly than any of the babble which could come out of
the child's mind itselfalthough I have some doubts
on that subject. Nevertheless, the spontaneous nature of
the dialogue is partially thwarted, suppressed or detoured.
There is less development of dialogue, of capacity for
communication, and therefore a lesser form ation of in
telligence than in more backw ard times when dolls did
not speak and children h ad to give them a language
of their own.
A second exam ple is taken from a m ore sophisticated
level. Any class society which is divided by social-m aterial
interests and in which class struggle goes on suppresses
to a certain extent the capacity for com munication between
people standing on different sides of the barricades. This
is not a m atter of lack of intelligence, of understanding
or honesty, from any individual point of view. This is
simply the effect of the inhibitive pressures that substantial
divisive m aterial interests exercise on any group of in
dividuals.
Anybody who has ever been present at wage bargaining
where there is severe tension between w orkers' and em
ployers' representatives I'm talking about real wage b ar
gaining, not sham wage b arg ain in g will understand
what I am referring to. The em ployers' side simply cannot
sympathize with or understand w hat the w orkers are talk
28
ing ab o u t even if they have the utm ost good will and
liberal opinions, because their m aterial-social interests pre
vent them from understanding w hat the other side is most
concerned with.
There w as a very striking exam ple of this inhibition
on another level (because w orkers and not em ployers
were involved) in the tragic strike of the United Federa
tion of Teachers in New Y ork in 1968 against the de
centralization of control over the school system. People
of b ad will, fools or stupid people were not so much
involved. Indeed, m ost of them w ould have been called
liberal o r even left some time ago. But through very strong
pressures of social interest and social milieu, they were
sim ply incapable of understanding w hat the other side,
the Black and Puerto Rican m asses who w anted com
m unity control over the education of their children, was
talk in g about.
Thus the M arxist notion of alienation extends far be
yon d the oppressed classes of society, properly speaking.
The o ppressors are also alienated from p a rt of their hu
m an capacity through their inability to com m unicate on
a h u m a n basis with the m ajority of society. And this
divorcem ent is inevitable as long as class society and
its deep differentiations exist.
A nother terrible expression of this alienation on the
individual scale is the trem endous loneliness which a so
ciety based on com m odity production and division of
la b o r inevitably induces in m an y hum an beings. Ours
is a society based on the principle, every m an for himself.
Individualism pushed to the extreme also m eans loneli
ness pushed to the extreme.
It is sim ply not true, as certain existentialist philos
ophers contend, that m an has alw ays been an essentially
lonely h u m an being. There have been form s of integrated
collective life in prim itive society where the very notion
of loneliness could not arise. It arises out of com modity
production an d division of la b o r only at a certain stage
of h u m an development in bourgeois society. And then
unfortunately it acquires a trem endous extension which
can go beyond the limits of m ental health.
Psychologists have gone aro u n d with tape recorders
and listened to certain types of dialogues between people
29
in shops or on the street. When they play these dialogues

afterwards they discover that there has been no exchange
whatsoever. The two people have talked along parallel
lines without once meeting with each other. Each talks
because he welcomes the occasion to unburden himself,
to get out of his loneliness, but he is incapable of listening
to what the other person is saying.
The only meeting place is at the end of the dialogue
when they say goodbye. Even that farewell is saddening
because they w ant to save the possibility of unburdening
themselves of their loneliness the next time they meet.
They carry on w hat the French call dialogue de sourds,
dialogues between deaf people, that is, dialogues between
people who are incapable of understanding or listening
to other people.
This is of course an extreme and m arginal illustration.
Happily, the m ajority of members of our society are
not yet in that situation or otherwise we would be on
the brink of a complete breakdow n of social relations.
Nonetheless, capitalism tends to extend the zone of this
extreme loneliness with all its terrible implications.
This looks like a very dim picture, and the dim picture
undoubtedly corresponds to the dim reality of our times.
If the curve of m ental sickness has climbed parallel with
the curve of m aterial wealth and income in most of the
advanced countries of the West, this dism al picture has
not been invented by M arxist critics but corresponds to
very deep-rooted aspects of the social and economic reality
in which we live.
But, as I said before, this grim situation is not at all
without hope. Our optimism comes from the fact that,
after all this analysis of the roots of the alienation of
lab o r an d the specific expressions of the alienation of
man in bourgeois society is completed, there emerges
the inescapable conclusion that a society can be envisaged
in which there will be no more alienation of labor and
alienation of hum an beings. This is a historically produced
and m an-m ade evil, not an evil rooted in nature or hum an
nature. Like everything else which has been m ade by man,
it can also be unm ade by m an. This condition is a product
of history and it can be destroyed by history or at least
g rad u ally overcom e by further progress.
30
Thus the M arxist theory of alienation implies and con

tains a theory of disalienation through the creation of
conditions for the g ra d u a l disappearance and eventual
abolition of alienation. I stress "gradual disappearance"
because such a process or institution can no more be
abolished by fiat or a stroke of the pen than com modity
production, the state, or the division of society into classes
can be eliminated by a governm ent decree or proclam ation.
M arxists understand that the social and economic pre
conditions for a g ra d u a l disappearance of alienation can
be b ro u g h t about only in a classless society ushered in by
a w orld socialist revolution. And when I say a classless
socialist society, I obviously do not mean the societies
which exist in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe or China.
In the best cases these are transitional societies somewhere
halfw ay between capitalism and socialism. Though private
p ro p erty h as been abolished, they have not yet abolished
the division of society into classes, they still have different
social classes and different social layers, division of labor
an d com m odity production. As a consequence of these
conditions, they still have alienated la b o r and alienated
men.
The prerequisites for the disappearance of hum an alien
ation, of alienated la b o r and the alienated activities of
h u m an beings, can only be created precisely through
the continuation of those processes I have just named:
the withering aw ay of com m odity production, the dis
ap p earan ce of economic scarcity, the w ithering aw ay of
social division of la b o r through the disappearance of
p riv ate ow nership of the m eans of production and the
elim ination of the difference between m anual and intellectual
labor, between producers and adm inistrators. All of this
would b rin g about the slow transform ation of the very
natu re of la b o r from a coercive necessity in order to
get money, income and m eans of consum ption into a
v o lu n tary occupation that people w ant to do because it
covers their own internal needs and expresses their talents.
This tran sform ation of la b o r into all-sided creative hum an
activity is the ultim ate goal of socialism. Only when that
g oal is attained will alienated la b o r and all its pernicious
consequences cease to exist.
Progressive D isalienatio n through

the Building o f Socialist Society,
or the In evitable A lienatio n
in Industrial Society?
by Ernest M a n d e l
T h e ideological and m y stific atin g d isto rtio n o f the M arxist

th e o ry o f alienation has specific social sources in th e re ality o f our
tim e. F u rth e rm o re , it fulfills obvious apo lo g e tic functions. T h e
ideologists o f th e bourgeoisie try to p re sen t the m ost repulsive
features o f c o n te m p o ra ry capitalism as eternal and inevitable re
sults o f the h u m an dra m a . T h e y en d e av o r to re d u ce the sociohistorical co n c e p tio n o f hum an alienation to an anth ro p o lo g ica l
c o n c ep tio n , b ea rin g the m ark o f resignation and despair. As for
the S talinist ideologists, th e y strive to re d u ce the valid k ern el
of the th e o ry o f alienation to specific features o f th e capitalist
exploitation o f labor, in o rd e r to p ro v e th a t alienation no longer
exists in the S oviet U n io n and c a n n o t exist in an y society in
transition fro m capitalism to socialism (n o r, a fortiori, in any
socialist s o c ie ty ).
C onversely, th e g la rin g survival o f p h enom ena o f alienation in
Soviet so ciety serves as a basis fo r bou rg eo is ideologists to dem o n
strate triu m p h a n tly the absolute in ev itab ility o f alienation in
industrial so ciety . A n d th e o b stinacy w ith w h ich official Soviet
ideology denies the ev idence th a t is, the survival o f phenom ena
of alienation d u rin g th e tran sitio n from capitalism to socialism
risks elicitin g sim ilar conclusions from iVtarxist theoreticians in
co u n trie s w ith a socialist ec o n o m ic basis w ho arc sincerely seeking
to d iscover th e re ality u n d er the veil o f official lies.
31
32
A n analysis o f th e .Marxist th e o ry of alienation is thus incom

plete as lo n g as it docs n o t enable one to fo rm u la te a M arxist
th eo ry o f progressive disalienation and does n o t d efend this suc
cessfully against th e m y th o f in evitable alienation in any and
e v e ry in d u strial s o c ie ty .
A M arxist c o n c e p t o f alienation and disalienation cle arly does
n o t fit in w ith th e a p o lo g e tic assertions o f w rite rs like Jah n , ac
co rd in g to w h o m th e d o m in atio n o f an alien p o w e r o ver m en is
do n e aw ay w ith w h e n p riv ate p ro p e rty is abolished b y th e p ro
letarian re v o lu tio n and th e b u ild in g o f co m m u n ist society, since
h ere m en find them selves freely fa cin g th e ir o w n p ro d u c ts . . . 1
A sim ilar view is u p h eld b y M an fred B uhr, w h o w rites th a t aliena
tio n is elim inated o n ly w ith th e socialist re v o lu tio n and th e fo rm a
tio n o f th e d ic ta to rs h ip o f th e p ro leta riat, in th e process of building
socialist s o c ie ty . 2 T h e a u th o r adds, to be sure, th a t all the p h e
nom ena o f alienation do n o t vanish sp o n tan eo u sly on th e m o rro w
o f th e socialist re v o lu tio n . B ut he re fers in this co n n e ctio n to
vague ideological and p sy ch o lo g ica l survivals fro m th e capital
ist era, b o u rg e o is individualism and egoism , w ith o u t revealing
th e ir m aterial and social roots.
In a later w o rk , B u h r d eclares q u ite cle arly : J u s t as th e social
ph en o m e n o n o f alienation is a p h en o m e n o n o f historical origin and
will cease to m anifest itself as h isto ry advances, th e c o n c e p t o f
alienation th a t reflects it is likew ise an historical c o n c e p t and can
n o t be applied sig n ifican tly to an y b u t capitalist co n d itio n s. 3
T h e r e is ob v io u sly no causal re la tio n sh ip b etw e en th e first and
second parts o f this sen ten c e. T h e fa ct th a t alienation is an h isto r
1. W olfgan g Jahn, "Der o k on om isch e Inhalt des Begriffs der
Entfrem dung der Arbeit in den Friihschriften v o n K arl Marx,"
W irtschaftsw issenschaft, no. 6 (1 9 5 7 ) . p. 864.
2. Manfred Buhr, "Entfremdung," in P h ilo so p h isc h es Worterb u ch , G eorg K laus and Manfred Buhr, eds., (L eip zig, 1964).
p. 140. It m ust be em ph asized that, despite this w eakness re
g a rd in g the problem of d isalien ation , Buhr's text represents
an a d van ce over the w ay the q uestion of alienation had previ
ou sly been dealt with in the G erman D em ocratic Republic.
3. Buhr,
"Entfrem dung P h ilosop hisch e
A n th rop ologie
M arx-K ritik, D eutsche Z eitsc h rift f iir P hilosophic, 14th year,
no. 7 (B erlin, 1 9 6 6 ). p. 8 14. In a footnote, Buhr adm its that
d isalien ation is a p ro c e ss which m erely beg in s with the over-
Progressive Disalienation or Inevitable Alienation?
33
ically lim ited phenom enon docs not in the least im ply th at its
validity is lim ited to the capitalist epoch alone.
T . I. O iscrm an expounds his arg u m e n t on a higher plane: U n
d er socialism [th e w rite r here refers explicitly to the first phase of
socialism , defined b y M arx in T h e C ritique o f the G otha T rog rannne\ w h a t Alarx called the essence, the co n te n t, o f alienation
docs n o t exist and, in the s tric t sense, it ca n n o t exist u n d er social
ism: this c o n te n t being the dom ination o f the p ro d u c ers b y the
p ro d u c ts o f th eir labor, alienation o f p ro d u c tiv e ac tiv ity , alienated
social relations, su b jectio n o f the p ersonality to the spontaneous
forces o f social ev o lu tio n . 4
U n fo rtu n a te ly , all th e phenom ena O iserm an lists n o t only can
survive in th e epoch o f transition fro m capitalism to socialism ,
b u t th e y even survive in e v ita b ly , in so far as co m m o d ity p ro d u c
tion, the exchange o f lab o r p o w e r fo r a stric tly lim ited and ca lcu
lated w age, the e c o n o m ic obligation to effect this exchange, the
division o f labor (a n d in p a rtic u la r th e division o f labor b etw een
m anual w o rk and m ental w o rk , and so o n ), c o n tin u e to survive.
In a transitional so ciety w h ich is b u re au cratically d isto rted o r
deg e n era ted , these p h enom ena m ay even acquire g re a te r and
g re a te r scope.
T h is is clear fro m an analysis in d e p th o f the ec o n o m ic reality
o f the c o u n trie s w ith a socialized ec o n o m ic basis. It is plain th at
the w o rk e rs needs as consum ers are n o t at all co m p lete ly m et:
does th a t n o t im p ly alienation o f th e w o rk e r in rela tio n to the
p ro d u c ts o f his labor, especially w hen these p ro d u c ts are g oods he
w ants to o b tain , and th e in adequate d e v e lo p m e n t o f the p ro d u c
tive fo rces (n o t to m en tio n th e b u re a u c ra tic d isto rtio n o f the dis
trib u tiv e s y s te m !) p re v en ts him fro m d o in g so? It is also plain th at
the division o f lab o r (th e negative effects o f w h ich are re in fo rce d
throw of capitalist society. But he concludes that it is not p os
sible to deduce from these prem ises that p henom ena of alien
ation are still to be found in socialist society (m ore precisely,
in the epoch of transition from cap italism to so cia lism ). E very
thing in socialism that is referred to "com m only and carelessly"
as alien ation is at m ost on ly "externally similar" to capitalist
alienation. The ap ologetic aspect of this casu istry stares one
in the face.
4.
T. I. O iserm an, Die E n tfr e m d u n g als h isto risch e K a te g o rie,
(B erlin, 1 9 6 5 ). p. 135.
34
b y th e b u re a u c ra tic o rg a n iz atio n o f th e e c o n o m y ) o ften alienates

th e w o rk e r and citizen fro m p ro d u c tiv e a c tiv ity . T h e n u m b er of
ca n d id ates fo r u n iv ersity places w h o are n o t ac ce p te d and w h o are
th e re fo re com pelled to engage in activities w hose sole purpose is
to earn a livin g are so m an y w itnesses to this alienation. O ne could
add to th e list indefinitely. In C zec hoslovakia a C om m unist w rite r
nam ed M iroslav K u sy has n o t hesitated to d ra w atte n tio n to the
n ew phen o m e n a o f alienation caused b y th e b u re au cratizatio n of
in stitu tio n s w h ic h alienate them selves fro m th e p e o p le.5 T h is is a
s u b je c t th a t co u ld be d ev eloped at g re at length. E ven a w rite r
as su b tle as J. N . D a w y d o w p re fers to ig n o re this pro b lem and
p ru d e n tly re stric ts him self to an analysis o f th e co n d itio n s of dis
alienation in th e sec o n d phase o f socialism a n o te w o r th y analysis,
to w h ic h I shall re tu r n later.
U n d e r these co n d itio n s o n e can o n ly ap p la u d H e n ri L efeb v re
w h e n he states flatly th a t M arx n ev e r re s tric te d th e sphere of
alienation to cap italism . c A n d one m ust a c k n o w led g e th e c o u r
age o f W o lfg a n g H eise w h e n he declares: O v e rc o m in g alienation
is identical w ith th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e conscious socialist indi
vidual and th e c o llec tiv e p o w e r to create . It is re alized th ro u g h
th e b u ild in g o f socialism and com m unism . T h u s it is an aspect o f
th e w h o le h isto rical process w h e re b y th e m arks o f th e old society
are o v erco m e in all th e re la tio n s an d activities o f life. It begins
w ith th e e m a n cip atio n o f th e w o rk in g class, th e s tru g g le fo r the
d ic ta to rs h ip o f th e p ro le ta ria t, and ends w ith th e realization o f
social self-m a n a g e m en t in its m o s t co m p le te fo r m . 7 T h is seems to
m e b ro a d ly c o r re c t, even if w e m ust c riticiz e H eise fo r his analysis
o f th e co n c rete aspects o f alienation and o f th e process o f disal
ienation in th e e p o c h o f tran sitio n fro m capitalism to socialism .
In a n y case, this p o in t m u st be k ep t firm ly in m ind: fo r M arx,
th e p h en o m e n o n o f alienation is o ld e r th an capitalism . It is co n
n e c ted w ith th e in ad e q u ate d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e p ro d u c tiv e forces,
5. Quoted by Gunther H illm ann in "Zum Verstandnis der
Texte," K a r l M a rx , T exte z u M e th o d e u n d P raxis, II, P ariser
M a n u s k r ip te 1 8 4 4 , (H a m b u rg , 1 9 6 6 ). pp. 2 1 6 -2 1 7 .
6. Henri Lefebvre, Preface to the second edition of C ritique
de la Vie q u o tid ie n n e, Vol. I, (P aris, 1 9 5 8 ). p. 74.
7. W olfgan g
H eise,
"Uber die Entfrem dung und ihre
Uberwindung," D eutsche Z eitsc h rift f u r P h ilo so p h ic , no. 6 (B er
lin, 1 9 6 5 ). p. 7 01.
35
w ith c o m m o d ity p ro d u c tio n , m oney econom y, and the social

division o f labor. As long as these phenom ena co n tin u e to exist,
the survival o f hum an alienation in som e form o r o th e r is inev
itable.8
T h e Y ugoslav C om m unist th eoretician Boris Ziherl adm its its
existence in socialist s o ciety (I should call it, m ore c o rre c tly ,
society in transition from capitalism to socialism ), and this is
e n tire ly to his cred it. B ut he docs this on ly to re m o n stra te w ith
those Y ugoslav philosophers w h o call fo r beg in n in g disalienation
by begin n in g the w ith e rin g aw ay o f the co m m o d ity eco n o m y , or
w ho lay em phasis on the unnecessary and alienating form s of
c o n stra in t th a t c o n tin u e to exist in Y ugoslav so ciety .9
T h e position o f the official Y ugoslav theo re tic ian s on this ques
tion is highly c o n tra d ic to ry . T h e y say th at m aterial co nditions arc
n o t ripe fo r the w ith e rin g aw ay o f th e co m m o d ity ec o n o m y and
th e alienation th a t results fro m it. Bur arc m aterial co nditions ripe
fo r th e w ith e rin g aw ay of th e state? In th e ir stru g g le against Stalin
and his follow ers, th e Y ugoslav C om m unists appealed to Lenin
w h o had sh o w n in State and R e v o lu tio n th at in o rd e r to co n fo rm
w ith the advance to w a rd socialism the w ith e rin g aw ay o f the state
m ust begin on the d ay a fte r th e pro leta rian re v o lu tio n , th at the
p ro leta riat m ust build a state w h ich is no lo n g er a state in the
s tric t sense o f the w o r d . T h e y proclaim ed, and rig h tly , th a t re
fusal to take this road, fa r from p re p arin g th e m a tu ra tio n o f
ob jec tiv e c o n d itio n s, w o u ld in ev itab ly set up extra obstacles in
th e w ay o f a fu tu re w ith e rin g aw ay , w h ich co u ld n ot, a fte r all,
develop o u t o f a co n stan t re in fo rc e m e n t o f th e sam e state!
B ut this reasoning, w h ich is c o r re c t as it applies to the state, is
equally c o r re c t in relation to co m m o d ity e c o n o m y ." 1 T h e p ro le
taria t ca n n o t dep riv e itself o f this im m ediately a fte r the o v erth ro w
8. A varian t of the ap ologetic conception is offered by E. V.
Ilenkov, w ho sa y s that on ly "the an tagon istic d ivision of labor,"
"the b ou rgeois d ivision of labor," h as the effect of m utilating
m an. ( L a dialettica dell 'a stra tto e del concreto nel C apitale
d i M arx, Milan, 1961, p. 3 2 ). F or M arx, all d ivision of labor
that condem ns m an to d o one job on ly and therefore the d iv i
sion of lab or that continues to exist in the U S S R is alienating.
9. Boris Ziherl, "On the Objective and Subjective C onditions
of D isalienation Under Socialism , in S o cia list T h o u g h t a n d Prac
tice (Y u g o s la v ia ), January-M arch 1965. pp. 122, 129-130.
10. H eise ("Uber die Entfremdung," pp. 7 0 0 -7 1 1 ) analyzes
36
o f capitalism ; it is linked w ith a historical phase in th e developm ent

o f th e p ro d u c tiv e forces w h ic h has fa r fro m been o u tg ro w n in
w h a t are called th e d ev e lo p in g c o u n trie s (a n d all th e countries
w ith a socialized ec o n o m ic basis, except th e G e rm an D e m o c ratic
R ep u b lic, w e re in this c a te g o ry w h e n th e y began to build social
ism ). T h e state can and m ust be used, w ith in th e fram ew o rk o f a
planned e c o n o m y , in o rd e r to p e rfe c t th e p lan n in g o f th e ec o nom y
and hasten th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e p ro d u c tiv e forces, w ith o u t
w h ic h its u ltim a te w ith e rin g aw ay w o u ld be a uto p ian prospect.
A t th e sam e tim e, h o w e v er, it m ust begin to w ith e r aw ay o r its
extension w ill c reate fresh obstacles, b o th o b jec tiv e and subjective,
in th e p ath o f its fu tu re w ith e rin g aw av . T h e n atu re of these
fresh obstacles is revealed in tra g ic fashion in Y ugoslavia, w here
th e c o m m o d ity has p ro d u c e d a social c o n tra d ic tio n w hose p rin
ciple it h arb o rs, nam ely, u n e m p lo y m e n t, w ith all th e consequences
th a t also fo llo w fo r m an s consciousness.11 N o m ore can th e state
m irac u lo u sly w ith e r aw ay all at o n ce a fte r b ein g co n stan tly re
in fo rc e d in th e p re c e d in g p erio d th an can th e co m m o d ity ec o n o m y
m irac u lo u sly w ith e r aw ay a fte r b ein g c o n sta n tly co nsolidated and
ex tended in th e p erio d o f tran sitio n b etw e en capitalism and social
ism.
T h e Y ugoslav philo so p h e rs w h o b rin g up th e p ro b lem o f the
survival and re p ro d u c tio n o f p h enom ena o f alienation in th eir
in detail a num ber of factors which h old back the process of

d isalien ation d u rin g the p h ase of the b u ild in g of socialism
in reality, the p h ase of transition from cap italism to socialism .
But he d oes not even m ention, in this context, the su rv iv a l of
com m od ity ec o n o m y an d m on ey econ om y, th ou gh this is one
of the essential sou rces of alien ation, accord in g to Marx!
11.
C om pletely forgetting the connection between alienation
and com m od ity prod uction, the Y u goslav econom ist B ran ko
H orvat sees the road lea d in g to the ab olition of alien ation in
self-m an agem ent. He writes: "Control of p roduction without the
state as interm ediary m eans control b y direct producers, which
in turn m eans that the eq u ality of proletarians is turned into
the eq u ality of m asters. The p rocess of h um an alien ation . . .
com es to an end . . . ( T o w a r d a T h e o r y o f E c o n o m ic P lan
n in g , B elgrade, 1 9 6 4 , p. 8 0 .) Strange "masters" indeed, w h o
m ay find th em selves on the street, without work or incom e
w orth y of the name!
37
c o u n try 12 are thus m ore M arxist in relation to this problem than

the official theoreticians even if th e y are som etim es led, u n d er
the influence o f th eir o w n bad experiences, to p u t a question m ark
over the M arxist th e o ry o f the com plete disalienation o f m an in
com m unist society. T h e possibility o f this disalienation is also
challenged in tw o re c e n t w orks b y H e n ri L efe b v re 13 in w hich the
au th o r can see n o th in g m ore than a continual sw inging to and fro
b etw een alienation, disalienation, and re-alienation. H e says,
rig h tly , th a t it is necessary fully to partic u la rize , historicize,
and relativize th e co n c e p t o f alienation.14 If, th o u g h , in relativizing this co n c e p t w e do aw ay w ith th e possibility of co m
p letely n eg a tin g it, w e ten d to m ake it absolute again. T h u s, Lefe b v res atte m p t to h isto ricize alienation m ust be re garded as
a failure, since it has p ro d u c e d the opposite dialectical result,
tran sfo rm in g alienation in to a c o n c e p t w h ich is im m anent in
hum an society, even if it presents itself in a d iffe ren t form in each
ty p e o f society.
T h e sources o f this historical skepticism arc obvious: th ey are
the negative phenom ena th at have accom panied the first historical
endeavors to build a socialist s o c ie ty 15 the results o f Stalinism
w h ich have o u trag e o u sly and uselessly intensified the phenom ena
12. I will m ention, a m o n g others: Rudi Supek, "Dialectique
de la pratique sociale," in P ra xis, N o . 1, 1965; Gajo Petrovid,
"Marx's T heory of Alienation," and a lso "Man as E conom ic
A nim al and Man as Praxis," in In q u ir y , 1963; Predrag Vranicki,
"Socialism and the Problem o f Alienation," in Praxis, N o. 2-3,
1965, and "La signification actuelle de l'hu m an ism e du jeune
Marx," in A n n a li d e llIs titu to G ia n g ia co m o F eltrinelli, 1 964-1965;
Z aga Pesi-G olubovi, "What Is the M eaning of Alienation?" in
P raxis, N o. 5, 1966.
13. Lefebvre, C ritique d e la Vie q u o tid ie n n e, Vol. II, (Paris,
1 9 6 1 ) and In tr o d u c tio n a la m o d e r n it ( Paris, 1 9 6 2 ).
14. C ritique de la Vie q u o tid ie n n e, Vol. II, p. 209.
15. " T o d a y we are less con vinced than Marx w as that there
can be an ab solu te end to alienation." (L efebvre, In tro d u c tio n
a la m o d e m iti, p. 146. E m p hasis m ine. E. M .) By referring
to p r e s e n t-d a y con d ition s in order to justify this conclu sion ,
Lefebvre seem s to forget the prem ises of M arx's argum ent: the
w ithering aw a y o f com m od ity production, m on ey econom y,
and the so cia l d iv isio n of labor, on a w orld scale, and on the
b a sis of a v ery high level of d evelopm ent of productive forces.
38
o f alienation and w h ich ca n n o t b u t c o n tin u e to exist in the period

o f tran sitio n from capitalism to socialism .
T h u s , the nco-skcpricism of a L efeb v re o r o f a P esi-G olubovi
is on ly a negative re actio n in face o f th e Stalinist experience, just
as the a p o lo g e tic w ritin g o f B uhr, Jah n , O iserm an, and Ilcnkov is
o n ly a p ro d u c t o f the sam e experience, an atte m p t to gloss o ver the
negative aspects o f social re ality in th e c o u n trie s w ith a socialized
e c o n o m ic basis. O n c e th in k in g o u tg ro w s apologetics o f this sort,
in a n ew political c o n te x t in E astern E u ro p e , it m av either take
th e p ath o f a re tu rn to th e original co n c ep tio n o f disalienation as
w e find it in M arx disalienation co nceived o f as a process de
p e n d in g on a m aterial and social in fra s tru c tu re w h ich docs n o t y et
exist in th e p erio d o f tran sitio n fro m capitalism to socialism o r
else th e p ath o f skepticism ab o u t th e possibility o f co m p lete dis
alienation.
B ut th e task fo r scientific th o u g h t is to analyze th e social and
ec o n o m ic sources o f th e co n tin u ed existence o f phenom ena of
alienation d u rin g th e p erio d o f tran sitio n b etw e en capitalism and
socialism and d u rin g th e first phase o f socialism , and to discover
the d riv in g forces o f th e process o f disalienation d u rin g these
historical phases. T h is m eans u n d e rta k in g an analysis th a t begins
b y p u ttin g aside those fa cto rs re in fo rc in g and ag g rav atin g aliena
tion as a re su lt o f th e b u re a u c ra tic d isto rtio n o r d eg e n era tio n o f a
s o ciety in tran sitio n , and th en later on in te g ra tin g these special
fa cto rs in a m o re c o n c re te analysis o f th e p h enom ena o f alienation
in co u n trie s like th e U .S .S.R ., th e p eo p les d em ocracies, and so
on.
T h e general so u rc e o f th e c o n tin u e d existence o f phenom ena
o f alienation d u rin g th e tran sitio n p erio d and in th e first phase of
socialism is th e in adequate level o f d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e p ro d u c tiv e
forces and th e re su ltin g survival o f b o u rg e o is no rm s o f d istrib u
tio n .10 T h e c o n tra d ic tio n b etw e en th e socialized m ode o f p ro
d u c tio n and th e bo u rg e o is no rm s o f d is trib u tio n th e c h ie f c o n tra
d ictio n o f th e tran sitio n p e rio d b rings fa cto rs o f alienation into
p ro d u c tio n relations. T h e w o rk e rs co n tin u e to suffer, even if on ly
partia lly , fro m th e effects o f an ob jec tiv e and elem ental social
16.
See the exp ression used b y M arx in C ritique o f the G otha
P r o g r a m m e , in Selected W orks, Vol. I ll, pp. 19-20. See a lso
m y M a r x is t E c o n o m ic T h eo ry, Vol. II, (N ew York, 1 9 6 9 ), p.
565.
39
evolution w h ich th ey do n o t co n tro l (th e survival o f the laws of

the m ark e t in the sphere o f consum er goods; the survival o f a
selection p ro c ed u re fo r jobs w h ich does n o t perm it full develop
m ent o f all the aptitudes o f every individual, e tc .).
W h e n to these circum stances w e add the h y p e rtro p h y o f b u
re au crac y , th e lack o f socialist d em o c rac y on the political level,
the lack o f w o rk e rs self-m anagem ent on the econom ic plane,
the lack o f freedom to create on th e cu ltu ra l plane, specific fac
tors o f alienation re su ltin g fro m b u re a u c ra tic d isto rtio n o r de
gen eratio n are added to th e inevitable fa cto rs m entioned in the
previous paragraph. T h e b u re au cratizatio n o f the transitional
society tends to aggravate th e c o n tra d ic tio n b etw een the socialized
m ode o f p ro d u c tio n and th e b o urgeois norm s of distribution, p ar
ticu larly b y in ten sify in g social inequality. T h e generalization o f
a m o n ey e c o n o m y w o rk s in the sam e w ay.
W o lfg a n g H eise m akes a v e ry subtle analysis o f this problem .
W h ile collective ow n e rsh ip o f th e m eans o f p ro d u c tio n and social
ist plan n in g in p rinciple o v erco m e social helplessness in relation
to th e evolution o f so ciety as a w hole, this does n o t m ean th a t this
social helplessness is im m ediately ov erco m e fo r ev e ry individual.
It is necessary to tak e in to ac c o u n t n o t o n ly th e ideological slag
o f th e capitalist past, o f th e m em bers o f th e fo rm e r ru lin g classes
w h o are still a ro u n d , o f th e inadequate level o f ed u catio n o f p art
o f th e p ro leta riat, and so on; w e have also to realize th a t this
helplessness is ov erco m e in p ra ctice o n ly w h e n individuals realize
th eir id e n tity w ith so ciety th ro u g h social ac tiv ity based on a large
n u m b er o f free decisions.17 T h is im plies n o t o n ly co m p lete self
m anagem ent b y lab o r at the level o f th e e c o n o m y taken as a w hole
(n o t m erely in th e p ro d u c tio n process b u t also in d istrib u tio n and
co n su m p tio n ), b u t also a w ith e rin g aw ay o f th e state and the dis
ap pearance o f all hum an relationships based on co n stra in t and
oppression.
T h u s far, H eises analysis seems to m e to be co rrec t. B ut in
statin g th a t the process o f disalienation ca n n o t be a spontaneous
p hen o m en o n b u t m u st be gu id ed b y th e P a rty , he begins b y saying
th a t the risk o f b u re au cratizatio n o f seeing th e m ach in ery of
g o v ern m e n t becom e in d ep e n d en t in relation to the purposes of
so ciety as a w h o le can best be neu tra liz ed b y P a rty ac tio n .,H T his
17. H eise, "Uber die E ntfrem dung, pp. 7 0 2 -7 0 3 .
18. Ibid., p. 7 0 4 .
40
is to take an idealistic view and lose sight o f th e fa ct th a t th ere are

tw o o b jec tiv e sources o f b u re au cratizatio n : on the one hand, the
survival o f sp o n tan eo u s ec o n o m ic processes (th e survival of
norm s o f co m m o d ity d is trib u tio n and o f elem ents o f a co m
m o d ity e c o n o m y , th e survival o f th e division o f labor, o f cu l
tu ral privileges, and o f delegations o f a u th o rity , all o f w h ich
cause th e m a c h in e ry o f g o v e rn m e n t to becom e in d ep e n d en t and
tra n s fo rm itself fro m th e serv an t in to th e m aster o f s o c ie ty ), and,
o n th e o th e r h and, th e c e n traliza tio n o f th e social surplus p ro d u c t
and th e rig h t to dispose o f it freely th a t belongs to th e state
m achine. T h e dual process o f disalienation in rela tio n to these
specific ph en o m e n a o f alienation thus consists in th e progressive
w ith e rin g a w ay o f th e c o m m o d ity ec o n o m y and o f social in
e q u a lity an d th e re p la ce m e n t o f th e system o f state m anagem ent
of th e e c o n o m y b y a system o f w o rk e rs self-m anagem ent, dem o
cratically ce n tralize d . T h e r e b y th e m aterial in fra s tru c tu re o f b u
re au cratizatio n is d estro y e d , and it is o n ly u n d e r these co n d itio n s
th a t th e s u b jectiv e a c tiv ity o f th e P a rty and th e b ro a d e n in g of
socialist d e m o c ra c y on th e political plane, w h ic h im plies aban
d o n m e n t o f th e d o gm a o f th e single p a r ty can be freed from
th e b u re a u c ra tic g rip w h ich subjugates it .19
H eise rig h tly insists on th e im p o rtan ce o f a sufficient level of
d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e p ro d u c tiv e fo rces in o rd e r to m ake possible
th e u n leashing o f all these processes o f disalienation. H o w e v er,
a fte r h a v in g first sinned b y v oluntarism , he goes on to sin b y a
m echanistic deviation. S uch a d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e p ro d u c tiv e
forces dem ands an ex tra o rd in a rily high level o f org a n iz atio n and
d iffe ren tiatio n o f social fu n c tio n s ; fo r this reason it w o u ld be
senseless to dem a n d d ire c t d e m o c ra c y in p ro d u c tio n o r the
ab a n d o n m en t o f a u th o rita ria n ce n tral p lan n in g . . . as a co n d i
tion fo r o v e rc o m in g alienation. . . . T h is w o u ld be a dem and
ru n n in g c o u n te r to th e real needs o f rational p ro d u c tio n , to ec o
nom ic and tec h n ic al logic . . . 20
It is n o te w o r th y th at, w h e n pushed back in to its last e n tre n c h
m ents, an apologia fo r th e lack o f w o rk e rs self-m anagem ent in
th e G e rm a n D e m o c ratic R ep u b lic m akes use o f th e sam e arg u
m en t th e high level o f d iffe ren tiatio n o f social fu n c tio n s
19. It is well know n that in the U SSR in Stalin's time the
Party w as the chief vehicle of b ureaucratization.
2 0. H eise, "Uber die Entfremdung," p. 706.
41
used by bourgeois ideologists to show th at alienation is inevitable,

not m erely u n d er capitalism b u t in any industrial so ciety . I
shall com e back to this p oint later. It is also n o te w o rth y th at
Heise ca n n o t conceive of ce n tral p lanning except as au th o ritarian
planning and th at, like th e Y ugoslav w riters alre ad y m entioned,
he rem ains c a u g h t in a dilem m a: e ith er an a rch y o f p ro d u c tio n
(m ark et ec o n o m y ) o r au th o ritarian planning. T h e possibility of
dem ocratically centralized planning, th e o u tco m e o f a congress
of w o rk e rs councils m anaging the enterprises, seems to elude
him . W h a t he calls th e lo w erin g o f th e level o f org an izatio n o f
s o ciety m eans lo r him (as fo r th e Stalinist and b ourgeois w r it
ers) th e abolition o f a u th o ritarian stru ctu re s. As if th e associated
p ro d u c e rs, to use M arxs expression, w e re incapable o f raising
th e level o f social organization b y su b stitu tin g , at least am ong
them selves,21 freely a c ce p te d discipline fo r a h iera rc h y o f p e r
sons g iving and re ceiv in g orders!
B ut th e basic w eakness o f H e ises arg u m e n t lies still deeper.
O n th e one hand, he appeals to th e p rim a c y o f P a rty a c tiv ity
(a gainst tendencies b o th to sp o n tan eity and to b u re a u c ra c y ); on
th e o th er, he invokes th e p rim a c y o f ec o n o m ic g ro w th (a gainst
d e m o c ratizin g th e life o f th e en te rp rises). H e does n o t seem to
realize th a t th e p o w e r o f th e b u re a u c ra c y is re flec te d su b jective ly
in this ec o n o m ic a rg u m e n t, and th a t b y ac c e p tin g it one paralyzes
in advance a n y su bjective ac tiv ity d ire c te d against th e b u re a u c
ra cy . F o r does n o t th e la tte r claim to p erso n ify c o m p e te n ce
and specialization as against th e ig n o ra n t masses? N o r does
H eise n o tice th a t ob je c tiv e ly th e b u re a u c ra c y rem ains all p o w
e rfu l as lo n g as it can dispose w ith sovereign a u th o rity o f th e
social surplus p ro d u c t (w h e th e r b y w a y o f th e a u th o rity it pos
sesses, as in th e U .S .S.R ., o r th ro u g h th e m edium o f th e laws
o f th e m a rk e t, as in Y ugoslavia).
T h is is w h y he calls fo r p le n ty o f co rre c tiv e s to m istakes,
in th e fo rm o f an in cre asin g rig h t o f c o n tro l b y th e c o m m u n ity ;
this is w h y he recognizes th a t in th e lo n g ru n th e ce n traliza tio n
o f a u th o rity in th e state m achine m u st be ov erco m e b y socialist
d e m o c ra c y an d th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f conscious ac tiv ity b y the
21.
Coercion o b v io u sly continues to be inevitable where other
social classes are concerned, but the degree of this coercion de
pends on the violen ce of so cia l contradictions.
42
m asses 22 b u t w ith o u t d ra w in g w h a t is fro m th e M arxist stan d

p o in t th e obvious co n c lu sio n , nam e ly th a t th e decisive step to w a rd
this d e m o c ra c y is one w h ic h subjects th e m an a g em en t o f p ro d u c
tion and th e p ossibility o f disposing o f th e social surplus p ro d u c t
to th e w o rk e rs as a w h o le to th e associated p ro d u c e rs.
J . N . D a w y d o w atte m p ts a m u ch m ore p ro fo u n d analysis of
th e m echanism s o f disalienation in th e b u ild in g o f com m unism
th an does H eise. T o M arx a c c o rd in g to D a w y d o w the ca p i
talist division o f lab o r had led to the c o m p lete elim ination of
freed o m fro m th e sp h ere o f m aterial p ro d u c tio n ; this freed o m
w ill be re sto red b v com m unism , because th e needs o f tec h n iq u e
them selves re q u ire in cre asin g fu n c tio n a l m o b ility am o n g th e p ro
d ucers, w h o w ill have bec o m e th e prin cip a l p ro d u c tiv e fo rce
th ro u g h th e ir scientific k n o w led g e . T h e individual perso n ality
w ith an all-a ro u n d d ev e lo p m e n t becom es possible on this te c h
nical basis, w h ich , indeed, insists u p o n it, since fro m the stan d
p o in t o f this p olitical ec o n o m y o f c o m m u n ism e v e ry o n e w h o
has n o t b ecom e a fu lly d ev eloped indiv id u a l co n stitu te s a seri
ous e c o n o m ic loss.23
B ut this m eans th a t u n d e r in cre asin g ly general co n d itio n s of
abu n d a n ce o f m aterial goods, th e prin cip a l goal o f p ro d u c tio n
becom es th a t o f p ro d u c in g fu lly dev e lo p ed individuals, crea
tive and fre e .24 In p ro p o rtio n as m an becom es th e p rincipal p ro
d u ctiv e fo rc e 25 th ro u g h th e e n o rm o u s extension o f scientific
te c h n o lo g y , he is less and less d ire c tly in te g ra te d in to th e p ro
d u c tio n process. In p ro p o rtio n as living la b o r is expelled fro m
th e p ro d u c tio n process, it acquires n ew significance as th e o r
g anizer and c o n tro lle r o f this process. A n d in p ro p o rtio n as th e re
th u s take place, side b v side, th e p ro d u c tio n o f an ab u n d a n ce o f
m aterial goods and th e p ro d u c tio n o f m en w ith all-a ro u n d devel
o p m en t, th e d o m in atio n o f dead la b o r o v er living la b o r dis
2 2. Heise, "Uber die Entfremdung," pp. 7 0 6 -7 0 7 .

23. J. N. D aw yd ow , F r eih e it u n d E n tfr e m d u n g (B erlin, 1 9 6 4 ).
p. 114.
2 4 . Ibid., p. 117.
2 5 . Cf. M arx, in the G ru n d risse d e r K r itik d er po litisch e n
O k o n o m ie , 2 v o ls. (B erlin , 1 9 5 3 ), p. 593: "It is the developm ent
of the so cia l in d ivid u al that [now] ap pears as the great funda
m ental pillar of p roduction and wealth."
43
appears and freedom is re sto red in m aterial p ro d u c tio n .20

T h e w hole o f this analysis, w h ich is essentially based on the
passages in the G riuidrisse w h ich I q u o ted earlier, seems a c o n
tribution to a fundam ental clarification o f the p ro b lem .27 Its chief
weakness is th a t it jum ps in one leap from capitalist society to
com m unist p ro d u c tio n relations, w ith o u t analyzing the neces
sary and inevitable interm ediate historical stages w ith o u t de
scribing the co n c rete d riv in g forces o f progressive disalienation
in the transitional phase, d u rin g the bu ild in g o f socialism. W o r k
ers self-m anagem ent, d e m o c ratic-c en tra list ce n tral planning, the
progressive w ith erin g aw ay o f c o m m o d ity p ro d u c tio n , th e g en
eralization o f higher education, a radical re d u ctio n in the w o rk
ing day, the d evelopm ent o f creative a c tiv ity d u rin g free tim e,
the progressive in terp e n etratio n of co n su m er habits on a w o rld
scale, the p sychological re v o lu tio n b ro u g h t ab o u t b y these suc
cessive transform ations, and in p artic u la r b y the w ith e rin g aw ay
of c o m m o d ity p ro d u c tio n :28 none o f this is included in D a w v d o v 's analysis, and th e y arc needed in o rd e r to com plete it and
rem ove from his w o rk a to u c h o f platirudinism w h ich his b o u r
geois and dogm atist critics m ay w ro n g ly use against him .20
T h e p o in t is th at, in o rd e r to be logical the analysis o f the p ro
gressive disalienation o f labor and o f m an u n d er socialism m ust
be com bined w ith an exhaustive analysis o f alienation in th e tran si
tion period. W ith o u t this, such an analysis becom es arb itra ry . It
looks like a flight in to th e fu tu re w h ich irritate s those w h o give
p rio rity to a m ore p ra g m a tic ap p ro ach to im m ediate reality. A t
least, th o u g h , this flight in to th e fu tu re has th e m erit o f c la rity
26. D aw yd ow , F reih e it u n d E n tfr e m d u n g , pp. 117, 131.
27. See the series of q uotations given in Chapter 7 of m y
The F o r m a tio n o f the E c o n o m ic T h o u g h t o f K a r l M a rx (N ew
York and L ond on , 1 9 7 1 ).
28. I h ave devoted a large part of Chapter 17 of m y M a rx ist
E co n o m ic T h e o r y to these problem s.
29. Several aspects of D aw yd ow 's argum ent h ave already
begun to be verified em pirically, in particular the need for a
greater degree of m ob ility of labor and the ability to perform
tasks within functional team s which is resulting from the ad vance
of au tom ation in large-scale industry. (See G. Friedm ann and
P. N aville, eds., T rait de s o cio lo g ie d u tra va il, Vol. I, Paris,
1961, pp. 3 8 0 -3 8 1 ).
44
and precision in its view o f fu tu re developm ents. It rem ains fa ith

ful to .Marxs tea ch in g , w h ic h re p u d ia tes an y an th ro p o lo g ica l
c o n c e p tio n o f alienation.
T h e sam e m erit ca n n o t be ac co rd e d to th e disillusioned co n c lu
sions A dam S chaff d ra w s fro m his co n fro n ta tio n w ith presen t-d ay
P olish re ality . H e re co g n ize s th a t th e p h enom ena o f alienation
are still to be fo u n d in socialist so ciety , b u t solves th e problem
b y ca stin g d o u b t on th e possibility o f achieving, even in co m
m unist so ciety , th e w ith e rin g aw ay o f th e state, th e disappearance
o f th e division o f lab o r (w h ic h he conceives m echanistically: a
re a d in g o f D a w y d o w should ch a n g e his view o f th is!), and the
abolition o f c o m m o d ity p ro d u c tio n .-10 T h is skeptical and m is
a n th ro p ic revision o f M arx has been c riticiz ed b y th e leaders of
th e P olish C o m m u n ist P a rty 31 n o t b y calling fo r a fran k analysis
o f th e obstacles to disalienation im posed b y th e b u re au cratized
social re ality o f th e ir c o u n try , b u t b y sim ply d en y in g , in the usual
m an n e r o f apologetics, th a t th e p ro b lem exists at all. S chaff, w ho
has at least trie d to d ra w up a p ro g ra m o f ac tio n against aliena
tion, is b y com p a riso n m o re sin c e re .32 B ut b o th th e y and he are
incapable o f re callin g w h a t M arx ta u g h t, and th e re fo re ca n n o t
c h e c k th e rise o f n o n -M a rx ist p h ilo so p h y and so cio lo g y in P o
land.
A n exam ple o f this is th e s tatem en t b y sociologist Stanislaw
O ssow ski th a t th e classical c o n c e p t o f social class fo rm u la te d b y
M arx, applies o n ly to a ty p e o f s o ciety ch a rac terize d b y th e capi
talism o f free co m p e titio n . T o d a y n o t o n ly th e ap p ro p riatio n of
th e m eans o f p ro d u c tio n b u t also th a t o f c o n su m er goods perm its,
30 . T m erely m ention this p roblem , esp ecially becau se it m ay
be su pp osed that com m od ity p roduction will h a v e v an ish ed from
fully d evelop ed com m u nist society, thou gh this su p p osition seem s
problem atic [!] in the light of present-day experience." (Schaff,
M a r x is m u s u n d d a s m e n sch lic h e In d iv id u u m , p. 1 7 7 .)
31. N o w e D rogi, Decem ber 1 965.
32. Schaff adm its that the socialization of the m eans of produc
tion can on ly b egin the process of d isalien ation . But he stresses
socialist ed u cation rather than ch an ges in econom ic conditions
(esp e cia lly the n ecessary w ithering aw a y of b ou rgeois norm s
of distribu tion ) as the m eans for com pleting this process. His
plea for a "moderate egalitarianism " and greater freedom of
op in ion and o f criticism in relation to "the elite in power" is to
his credit, but d oes not g o to the heart o f the matter.
45
he says, the establishm ent o f econom ic dom ination over m en.

T h ere are also new form s o f dom ination o f m an b y m an, dom i
nation w h ich results eith er from o w nership o f th e m eans o f p ro
duction, or fro m o w nership o f the m eans o f consum ption, o r from
ow nership o f the m eans o f violence, o r from a com bination o f
these d iffe ren t ow n e rsh ip s. 33 H e re w e plainly pass fro m a so
ciology based on th e ideas o f social class and social surplus p ro d
uct to a sociology based on th e co n c ep t, infinitely vaguer and
less operative, o f d o m in an t g ro u p s . 34 A n d a brid g e is thus
established betw e en critica l b u t revisionist sociology (a n d phi
losophy) in th e so-called socialist co u n trie s and the academ ic so
ciology o f th e capitalist countries, w h ich rejects M arxism in favor
of a division o f so ciety in to those w h o co m m an d and those
w ho o b ey .
T h e re is no need to u n d erlin e the ap o lo g e tic c h a ra c te r o f this
co n c ep tio n o f industrial so c ie ty as set o u t b y various w riters.
W h a t is specific to th e capitalist m ode o f p ro d u c tio n is attrib u te d
to every so cietv in th e ep o c h o f large-scale in d u s try .35 T h e re
sults o f a ty p e o f social org a n iz atio n are a ttrib u te d to a form of
technical organization.
M ost W e s te rn sociologists d ra w pessim istic conclusions from
this m y stific atin g iden tifica tio n o f social relations w ith technical
relations. T h e y revive th e old m y th o f H o b b e ss L eviathan and
see m o d ern m an as in ev itab ly cru sh ed ben e ath the m achine th at
has issued fro m his o w n brain. T h e alienation o f labor, the cru sh
33. Stanislaw
O ssow ski,
K la s s e n s tr u k tu r
im
so zia le n
B ew u sstsein (B erlin, 1 9 6 2 ), pp. 2 2 7 -2 2 8 .
34. O ssow ski's ideas are close to those of F rangois Perroux
or Rolf D ahrendorf, quoted earlier, or to the concepts of the
con servative a n th rop ologist A rnold Gehlen: functional authority
is said to be in creasin gly replacin g the d ivision of society into
classes. (A n th r o p o lo g is c h e F o r s c h u n g , H am b urg, 1961, p. 1 3 0 .)
O ssowski him self indicates (p. 2 2 3 ) that it is the incapacity
of the d ogm atic and a p ologetic "Marxism" of the Stalin era
to exp lain the phenom en a of so cia l privilege in societies with
socialized m eans of p roduction that lies at the root of his skeptical
revisionism .
35. See in p articular R aym ond Aron, D ix-h u it legons s u r la
societe industrielle-, Reinhard B endix, W ork a n d A u th o r ity in
In d u s tr y , D ahrendorf, C lass a n d C lass C onflict in In d u stria l
Society.
46
in g o f th e w o rk e r b y his o w n p ro d u c t, is said to be the inevitable

result o f large-scale in d u s try , and this alienation, w e are told, will
relentlessly w orsen as th e tech n ical ap p a ratu s is perfec ted .
It m ust be a d m itted th a t th e b u re a u c ra tic deg e n era tio n o f the
U .S .S.R ., especially in th e S talin era, has furnished p len ty o f a r
g u m en ts fo r s u p p o rte rs o f this pessim istic view . B ut w h a t is c h a r
a c teristic o f m ost o f th em is th e absence fro m th e ir w ritin g s of
an analysis in d e p th w h ic h w o u ld b rin g o u t th e law s o f d e v elo p
m e n t o f social re ality fro m a p u re ly p h enom enological d esc rip
tio n o f it.
B y statin g th a t th e re w ill alw ays be those w h o c o m m an d and
those w h o o b e y , th a t th e re w ill alw ays be scarce goods and
th e n ecessity o f an alien atin g m e th o d o f allo tin g them , these au
th o rs raise to th e level o f an axiom n o t the conclusions b u t the
prem ises o f th e ir a rg u m e n t. T h e y th in k th e y are basing th em
selves on em pirical facts, b u t in re ality th ey are re fu sin g to re c
ognize a te n d e n c y th a t is g o in g in th e op p o site d irec tio n . F o r it
is h ard to d e n y th a t th e p o ten tial w e alth o f so ciety , th e degree
o f satisfaction o f ra tio n a l needs, and th e possibility o f th e re b y
elim in atin g th e co e rciv e m echanism s in th e social and econom ic
org a n iz atio n , have been a d v a n cin g w ith gian t strides fo r a w hole
c e n tu ry and especially in th e last q u a rte r o f this c e n tu ry in
w h a t is called in d u strial so ciety . W h y should it be supposed
th a t this te n d e n c y c a n n o t re su lt in a q u alitativ e leap, b y w hich
m an s enslavem ent to th e necessities of a s tru g g le fo r existence
w o u ld w ith e r aw ay and his c a p a c ity to do m in ate his o w n social
o rg a n iz atio n , no less th an he dom inates th e forces o f n atu re , w ould
co m e to full flow er?
It m u st be re co g n ize d th a t tec h n ic al d ev e lo p m e n t is n o t h ead
in g in th e d ire c tio n foreseen b y th e pessim ists. G e o rg K laus c o r
re c tly d istinguishes b etw e en tw o ty p es o f a u to m atio n , th e second
o f w h ich , m u ch less rig id th an th e first and based on c y b e rn etics,
creates th e in fra s tru c tu re fo r th e w ith e rin g aw ay o f alienating
lab o r and is th e p re c o n d itio n fo r all-a ro u n d creativ e labor. A n d
a scientist like A. G . M . V an M clscn ho n estly adm its th at te c h
nique is still in th e p rim itiv e stage, w ith m an y o f its b ru talizin g
aspects re su ltin g p recisely fro m this prim itivencss: W h e n the
p rim a ry needs have really been satisfied, it is p e rfe c tly possible,
p a rtly as a result o f tech n ical p rogress itself, to p ro d u c e m any
sm all scries and to in c o rp o ra te original artistic p ro jec ts in each
47
of these scries. M oreover, the sh o rter and sh o rte r length o f tim e

needed fo r o b lig ato ry lab o r helps to m ake possible the blos
som ing o f all those things th at dem and so m uch personal care
and love. . . . N o d o u b t th ey will com e back in the fo rm of
free arts p ra cticed b y those w h o will have been liberated b y tec h
nique. 30 It goes w ith o u t saying th a t tec h n iq u e ca n n o t play this
liberating role until it has been freed fro m the g rip o f private
profit and the exploitation of capital.
T h e p ro n o u n c ed pessim ism o f the su p p o rters o f the thesis th at
alienation is inevitable in industrial so ciety is explained b y their
confusing the real sources o f a u th o rity w ith the fu n ctio n a l articu
lation o f a u th o r ity
T h e b o ard o f d irec to rs o f a capitalist co m
pany can decide to close d o w n its enterprises, d e stro y in g the
entire b u re au cratic h ie ra rc h y p a tien tly bu ilt up, w ith o u t ever
having previously en c ro ac h ed on th e g ro w in g in d ep e n d en ce o f
the research laboratories o r th e tech n o lo g ic al p lanning d e p a rt
m ent. B ut its decision to dissolve th e co m p a n y , m ade fro m co n
siderations o f p ro fit-m a k in g , show s how the previous delegation
o f a u th o rity w as lim ited to p a rtic u la r fu n c tio n s and h o w it is th at
private p ro p e rty rem ains th e real so u rc e o f a u th o rity . W h y could
a w o rk ers council n o t delegate som e technical a u th o rity in the
same w ay, w ith o u t th e re b y ceasing to be able to m ake (o r even
to cause the co llec tiv e g ro u p s o f w o rk e rs to m ake) the basic de
cisions o f e c o n o m ic m anagem ent?
,37
36. G eorg K laus, K y b e r n e tik in p h ilo so p h is c h e r S ich t ( Berlin,

1 9 65), pp. 4 1 4 -4 1 5 ; A. G. M. V an Melsen, Science a n d T ech n o lo
g y (Pittsburgh, 1 9 6 0 ), p. 3 2 1 .
37. T ypical in this connection are the thoughts of Alain Touraine on the increasin g decentralization of decisions within large
"bureaucratized" enterprises, in F riedm ann and N aville, eds.,
Traite de so c io lo g ie d u tra va il, Vol. I. pp. 4 2 0 et seq. One of
the first to use this argum ent w as Joh ann Plenge the true ancestor
of present-day b ou rgeois criticism of Marx: "Modern technique
implies m ental w ork, it im plies the su b ordin ation of disciplined
m an u al work in the enterprise as a whole," and so the exercise
of power by the m an u al workers is im possible. ( M a rx u n d Hegel,
p. 1 3 4 .) This p a ssa g e sh ould be set beside that taken from
W olfgang H eise, ab ove, con cern ing the im p ossib ility of d em o
cracy within an enterprise ow in g to the "differentiation of social
functions." We see that the a p o lo g ia for the b ou rgeois hierarchy
in the factory p rovid es the m ain argum ent in the a p o lo g ia for
the bureaucratic hierarchy.
48
It is n o t th e tec h n ic al in ev itab ility o f this fu n c tio n a l a rtic u la

tion th a t m akes it im possible to d em o c ratize the enterprises. It
is n o t th e c o m p lex ity and th e increasing diffe ren tiatio n o f tasks
th a t h in d er this d em o c ratiza tio n . T h e in su rm o u n tab le obstacle
u n d e r capitalism is th e ultim ate rig h t o f m aking the final decisions
w h ic h th e b ig sh areh o ld ers and th e ir allies and representatives,
th e m anagers, w a n t to keep fo r them selves.38 O n c e this obstacle
has been sw e p t aw ay b y the socialist re v o lu tio n th e re is no a
priori reason to suppose th a t fresh alienations m ust arise from
tec h n ic al necessities w ith in enterprises u n d e r d em o c ratic-c en
tralist self-m anagem ent.
T h e sam e pessim ism also results fro m inad e q u ately distinguish
in g b e tw e e n th e apparent au to m a tism o f the m echanism s and the
h u m a n decisions inspired b y social and ec o n o m ic m o tiv e s w h ich
arc ch a rac teristic o f w h a t is called in d u strial society. W h e n
w rite rs like N o r b e rt W ie n e r fear th a t m achines will eventually
m ake decisions in d e p e n d e n tly o f a n y ju d g m en t b y m en (th e m
selves m ec h an ized ) ,39 th e y fo rg e t th a t in capitalist society the
te n d e n c y to m echanize lab o r at th e lo w er levels is accom panied
b y an u n p re c e d e n te d c o n c e n tra tio n o f p o w e r to d ecide at the
to p , w h e re a h an d fu l o f m en aided b y an en o rm o u s mass of
in fo rm a tio n an d re ly in g on th e en tire fu n c tio n a l a rtic u la tio n of
a u th o rity w h ic h im m ensely stren g th e n s its strik in g p o w e r re
m ain th e sole m asters w h o , in th e final instance, decide w h e th e r
a p a rtic u la r line o f ac tio n sug g ested b y th e co m p u ters w ill ac
tu ally be ad o p te d o r n o t.40 W h a t jVlarxist th e o ry illum inates is
38. F ran cois B loch-L ain e b rin gs this out strik ingly in P o u r
u n e re fo rm e d e I en te rp rise (P aris, 1 9 6 3 ), pp. 4 1 , 4 3 -4 4 , 100:
He argu es for greater particip ation b y the trade union s and
the workers in the m an agem en t of certain aspects of the activity
of the enterprises. But he im m ediately em ph asizes that this "par
ticipation" leaves untouched the single suprem e authority, the
m aster hierarch y which alon e retains the right to m ake the
key econom ic decisions.
39. N orbert Wiener, T he H u m a n Use o f H u m a n B ein g s { New
York, 1 9 5 4 ), pp. 158-160.
4 0 . The case of the Am erican war m achine, which is h igh ly
m echanized (esp ecially as regard s the w arnin g system , guided
b y com pu ters), but which culm inates in the President of the
United States, w h o a lo n e h as the right to press certain buttons,
49
the m otives th at ultim ately inspire these m en: n o t arb itra ry m o

tives, o r irrational ones, o r m ere speculation, b u t the overall de
fense o f class interests as these arc un d ersto o d b y the m ost p o w
erful stratum o f the class co n cern ed .
If, then, this is h o w m atters really stand, it is clear th at it is
enough to tran sfer this p o w e r o f decision from a small handful
o f m en to th e mass o f associated p ro d u c ers fo r these same
m achines to be m ade to serve society to the same extent th at
today th ey seem to enslave it.41
A longside these pessim istic m ystifications, how ever, there arc
also som e optim istic ones. T h e alienation o f labor, it is said, is
indeed an inevitable re su lt o f industrial so ciety , b u t it can be
o vercom e w ith o u t the necessity o f o v erth ro w in g capitalism . It
will be en o u g h to give back to th e w o rk ers a sense o f partic ip a
tion, o r even a w o rk e th ic thanks to hum an relations being
given back th eir value w ith in th e e n te rp rise fo r the w o rk ers no
longer to feel alienated.4- It w ill be necessary, say others, to in
sure the existence o f m eans o f com m u n ica tio n , dialogue, and
creation w h ich give b ack to the w o rk e r his sense o f personality
and his freed o m in w o rk and leisure.43
T h e first o f these theses is plainly ap o lo g e tic in ch a rac ter. I
will even say th a t it u n d o u b te d ly serves b ig capital in a d irec t
w ay, since its av ow ed aim is to re d u ce social conflicts u n d er the
existing regim e. W h a t th e specialists in hum an relations try to
abolish is n o t the re ality o f alienation b u t the w o rk e rs aw areness
of this reality. T h e ir pseudo-disalienation w o u ld be alienation
carried to an extrem e, w ith th e alienated w o rk e r alienated from
is sym b olic of the entire m echanism of the capitalist regime.
41.
Here is a striking exam p le of the con fu sion between the
s o c io ec o n o m ic p o w e r o f d ec isio n and technical authority, taken
from the G erman b ou rgeois new spaper F r a n k fu r te r A llg em e in e
Z eitu n g of A ugust 16, 1967. A writer argues that with all the
d em ands for self-m an agem ent we h ear n ow ad ays, w h y not de
m and that a "patients' council" h ave the right to dictate to d oc
tors about d ia g n o ses and treatm ents?
42.
Elton M ayo, T he H u m a n P ro b lem s o f a n In d u s tr ia l C ivi
liza tio n (N ew York, 1 9 6 0 ), pp. 158 -159, 171 et seq.\ Bendix,
W ork a n d A u th o r ity in I n d u s tr y (N ew York, 1 9 5 6 ), pp. 4484 50.
43.
F rangois Perroux, "Alienation et creation collective," in
C ahiers de I'IS E A , June 1 9 64, pp. 92-93.
50
aw areness o f his o w n co n d itio n as a m utilated hum an b e in g .44

A lienation th u s acquires additional dim ensions th ro u g h th e at
te m p t m ade b y bo u rg e o is so ciety to m anipulate n o t m ere ly the
th in k in g and th e habits b u t even th e unconscious o f the p ro d u c e rs .4-'1 T h e r e is little ch a n ce , h o w e v er, th a t th e technicians o f
hum an re la tio n s w ill in th e lo n g ru n be able to p re v e n t the
w o rk e rs fro m b e c o m in g aw are o f th e state o f oppression in w h ich
th e y find them selves.
T h e second thesis, a m o re su b tle one, is above all am biguous.
It is fo rm u la te d as a m oral im perative, a p p a re n tly in d ep e n d en t of
th e fo rm tak e n b y in stitu tio n s (th a t is, th e m ode o f p ro d u c
tio n ). B ut F rangois P erro u x explains th a t it is n o t w ith in a rigid
fra m e w o rk o f institu tio n s, co n se c ra tin g th e w r o n g and in justice
in so ciety as a w h o le, th a t specialized in stitu tio n s can fulfill th eir
fu n c tio n . 40 Is a s o ciety based on th e obligation o f th e w o rk e r
to sell his lab o r p o w e r and to c a rry on b ru talizin g w o rk in o rd e r
to o b tain th e m eans to live n o t a rig id fra m e w o rk c o n se cra tin g
w r o n g and in ju stice ? H o w can one give th e w o rk e r, w ith in
th a t fra m e w o rk , th e feeling th a t he is p a rtic ip a tin g in collective
4 4 . B endix correctly classifies the theory of "human relations"
in the larger category of " ideology of managem ent" (I sh ould call
it, rather, cap italist id e o lo g y con cern ing the enterprise). It w ould
be ea sy to sh ow that the evolu tion of this ideology, over a
century, reflects n ot on ly the evolu tion of the structure of the
cap italist enterprise itself but a lso and ab o v e all the evolu tion
of the b a la n ce of strength between b ou rgeoisie and proletariat.
N oth in g is m ore revealin g in this connection than the ch an ge
from the h a u g h ty Puritanism and s o cia l D arw inism of the age
w hen the cap italist w a s all-pow erful to the hypocritical p leas for
asso cia tio n between cap ital and la b o r which n o w a d a y s ab oun d.
4 5 . V ance Packard, T he H id d e n P ersuaders. While C. Wright
Mills fears the d evelop m en t of indifference in the face of alien ation
( T he M a r x is ts , p. 11 3 ), B loch-L ain e stresses, m ore realistically,
with regard to this sam e alien ation or at least its m ost striking
aspect (the ab sence of w ork ers pow er within the enterprises):
"The calm is deceptive. Behind it lie m an y special and in d ividu al
d issatisfaction s, w hich are ready to break out into revolt at
the first d ow nw ard turn of the gen eral econom ic situation." ( P o u r
u n e r efo rm e de Ientreprise, p. 2 5 .) See som e b ib liograp h ical
references on the state of m ind of the w ork in g class in Chapter 1.
4 6 . "Alienation et creation collective," p. 4 4.
51
creation, o r the o p p o rtu n ity and the m eans to becom e conscious

of him self d u rin g his leisure hours? U n d e r the capitalist m ode
of p ro d u c tio n this w o u ld be n o th in g b u t a cru d e deception. C ar
ry in g o u t this p ro g ram requires o v e rth ro w in g capitalist society.
From th at m o m en t o n w a rd , ho w e v er, P erro u x s p ro g ram w ould
undergo a rem arkable expansion. It w o u ld no longer be a ques
tion o f givin g the w o rk e r the feeling o f p artic ip a tin g in co l
lective creation, b u t o f m aking him a real creato r. It w ould no
longer be a m atte r o f giving him the o p p o rtu n ity and the m eans
to becom e conscious o f him self in his leisure hours, b u t o f
giving him th e o p p o rtu n ity to realize him self th ro u g h free crea
tion, w ith o u t external c o n stra in t. It w o u ld no lo n g er be a m atter
of allow ing beneficent zones o f d isinterested cu rio sity to
develop, b u t o f attain in g co m p lete self-m anagem ent by m en in
all spheres o f social activity.
F o r th a t is w here the key to ultim ate disalienation really lies.
It results fro m the abolition o f lab o r (in the sense in w hich M arx
and Engels m ean this in T h e G e rm a n I d e o lo g y ),4' or, in o th er
w ords, the re p la ce m e n t o f m echanical and schem atic labor by
really creative labor w h ich is no lo n g er labor in the traditional
sense o f th e w o rd , w h ich no lo n g er leads to a m an s giving up
his life in o rd e r to insure his m aterial existence, b u t has becom e
m ans all-around creative a c tiv ity .48
47. The G erm an Id e o lo g y (M oscow , 1 9 6 4 ), pp. 85, 95, 2 36,

242.
48. Cf. G eorg K laus: "In order to develop all m a n s creative
powers, it is n ecessary to free him to a large extent from the
ob ligation to contribute schem atic lab or . . . " "Cybernetics and
autom ation are the technical con d ition s for this situation [com
m unism ], b ecause they en ab le m an to free h im self from all noncreative, schem atic work . . . They give him a b o v e all the time
for an all-arou nd scientific and technical education, that is, for
truly creative lab or at the con tem p orary level of production.
( K y b e r n e tik in p h ilo so p h is c h e r Sicht, pp. 4 5 7 , 4 6 4 .)
The Problem o f A lie n a tio n

by G eo rg e N ovack
The international socialist movement is witnessing a

crusade in its own ranks now adays for M oral R earm a
ment. To support their conclusions the intellectual apostles
of this new tendency lean heavily upon the alienations
suffered by m an in m odern society. Mixing socialist doc
trines with psychoanalytical theory, they approach the
the problem of alienation as though it were pivotal in
m odern life and treat it as though it were the very center
of M arxist thought.
Their preoccupation with the question has been stimulated
by num erous com mentaries on recent translations of such
early wTitings of M arx an d Engels as The Economic
and Philosophic M anuscripts o f 1844, The H oly Fam ily
and The German Ideology in which the concept of alien
ation plays a large part.
The intensified interest in this subject is not a mere
crotchet of the radical intellectuals. It stems from the very
real alienations experienced in present-day society and from
the grow ing antagonism between the rulers and the ruled
in both the capitalist and post-capitalist sectors of the
world.
The contradictions of life under contem porary capitalism
engender deep-going feelings of frustration. The wealth
p ouring from the factories and the farm s during the pro
longed postw ar boom has not strengthened assurance
about the future. Instead, it h as become another source
53
54
of anxiety, for it is widely felt that a new depression will

follow. Similarly, the enhanced control over industrial
processes m ade possible by autom ation confronts the
w orkers, not with welcome release from burdensom e toil,
but with the specter of chronic unem ployment. The com
m and over nature involved in the tapping of nuclear
energy holds over hum anity's head the threat of total
annihilation rather than the prom ise of peace and plenty.
An uncontrolled inner circle of capitalist politicians and
m ilitary leaders decide m atters of life and death. No won
der that people feel the economic and political forces
g o verning their fate as alien powers.
Although the social soil is different, sim ilar sentiments
are widely spread in the post-capitalist countries dom inated
by the b ureaucratic caste. Despite the g reat advances in
science, technology, industry, public health and other fields
m ade possible by their revolutions, w orkers and peasants,
students and intellectuals keenly resent their lack of control
over the governm ent and the adm inistration of the
economy. Freedom of thought, expression and o rg an iza
tion are denied them. Despite the official p ro p ag an d a
that they h ave at least become m asters of their own des
tinies, the people know that the powers of decision in the
m ost vital affairs are exercised, not by them, but by bu
reaucratic caliphs. The cardinal duty of the masses in the
C om m unist Party, the unions, the factories and collective
farm s, the educational institutions and publishing houses
is still to obey the dictates from above.
That now discarded h an d b o o k of falsifications of history
an d M arxism edited by Stalin, The H istory o f the C om m u
nist Party o f the Soviet Union, closes with the adm onition
that the "Bolsheviks" will be strong and invincible only
so long as "they m aintain connection with their mother,
the m asses, who gave birth to them, suckled them and
reared them." K rushchev has told how Stalin in his later
y ears never visited the factories or farm s and was totally
insulated from the lives of o rd in a ry folk. But Stalin's
successor has lifted only a corner of the veil hiding the
profound estrangem ent of the Soviet m asses from the
"boss men," as they are called.
M any thoughtful members of the Com m unist P arty have
The Problem o f Alienation
55
been impelled by the revelations at the Twentieth Congress

of the CPSU and by the Polish and H ungarian events of
1956 to reconsider their former views. Some of them seek
an explanation for the crimes of the Soviet leaders and the
Stalinist perversions of socialism in the M arxist oulook
itself.
This search has led them back to the young Marx.
They believe that they have found in the early works,
which m ark his transition from Hegelianism through Hu
manism to dialectical materialism , the clue to the falsifi
cations of M arxism and the distortions of socialism which
have run ram p an t in the Soviet Union and the Communist
parties. In these observations of M arx on the alienation
of m ankind under class society, in particular, they see
the basis for a salutary regeneration of the tarnished
socialist ideal.
These intellectuals have raised the banner of a neoSocialist H um anism against "mechanical materialism" and
"economic autom atism ." The seeds of the evil that bore
such bitter fruits under Stalin, they claim, were planted by
the "mechanical" M arxists and cultivated by the crudely
m aterialistic Leninists. They call for a renovated m orality
and a m ore sensitive concern for the "concrete, whole,
living man." M onstrous form s of totalitarianism are pro
duced by subservience to such "abstractions" as the Forces
of Production, the Economic F oundations and the Cultural
Superstructure, they say. Such an im m oral and inhum an
m aterialism leads to the reappearance, behind socialist
phrases, of the rule of things over people imposed by
capitalism.
The sam e message was proclaim ed over two decades
ago in the United States by Dwight M acDonald, then
editor of Politics, and by the Johnson-F orest group in the
Socialist W orkers Party. It is a favorite theme of the Social
Democratic and ex-Trotskyist writers of the m agazine
Dissent. It is now becom ing the creed of some former
Comm unist Party intellectuals grouped around The New
Reasoner in England.
E. P. Thom pson, one of the two editors of The New
Reasoner, wrote in a program m atic pronouncem ent in the
first issue (sum m er, 1957): "The ideologies of capitalism
56
an d Stalinism are both forms of 'self-alienation'; men

stumble in their minds and lose themselves in abstractions;
capitalism sees hum an la b o r as a com modity and the
satisfaction of his 'needs' as the production and distribu
tion of commodities; Stalinism sees la b o r as an economicphysical act in satisfying economic-physical needs. Social
ist hum anism declares: liberate men from slavery to things,
to the pursuit of profit or servitude to 'economic necessity.'
Liberate m an, as a creative b ein g and he will create,
not only new values, but things in scope and abundance."
Despite their up-to-date reasoning, the "new thoughts"
b ro u g h t forw ard by such Socialist H um anists against
dialectical m aterialism are h ard ly original. The essence
of their viewpoint is to be found in the schools of pettybourgeois socialism which flourished in G erm any before
the Revolution of 1848. Scientific socialism was created
in struggle against these doctrines, as anyone fam iliar
with the ideological birth process of M arxism knows.
The "True Socialism" of Moses Hess and K arl Grun
sought to base the socialist movement, not upon the neces
sary historical development of economic conditions and the
struggles of class forces, but upon abstract principles and
ethical precepts reg ard in g the need for m ankind, divided
ag ain st itself, to recover its wholeness and universality.
In the section on "True Socialism" in The C om m unist
M anifesto M arx and Engels ridiculed these phrasem ongers
who talked about the "alienation of the essence of mankind"
instead of undertaking a scientific investigation of money
an d its functions.
In their justified revulsion from Stalinism, the new "hu
mane" socialists have not gone forw ard to genuine M arx
ism, as they m istakenly believe; they have landed behind
it. They h ave unwittingly relapsed into a stage of theoreti
cal development that socialism and its m aterialist phi
losophy surm ounted over a century ago. What is worse,
in tak in g this backw ard leap to a prescientific socialism
of the m ost m aw kish variety, they discard both the
m aterialist principles and the dialectical m ethod which con
stitute the h eart of M arxism .
The attem pts of these disoriented intellectuals to insert
abstract m oralistic foundations under M arxism are retro
57
gressive. Yet it must be admitted that the theory of aliena

tion is by no m eans foreign to M arxism. It did play an
influential p art in the genesis and formative period of
scientific socialism. Indeed, in the history of the concept
we find a striking example of how the founders of Marxism
divested Hegel's central conceptions of their "idealist
trappings" and placed them on solid materialist supports,
transform ing both their form and substance in the process.
It is worthwhile to ascertain w hat the M arxist attitude
toward alienation really is. This will be the best corrective
to the w anderings of those upset socialists who are
fumbling for a new equilibrium.
Marx took the concept of alienation from Hegel. In this
instance, as in so m any others, H egelianism was the
ideological source and starting point of M arxian thought.
Alienation ( E ntausserung) and estrangem ent ( Entfrem
dung) are key categories in Hegel's idealist philosophy.
These are the m ost extreme expressions of difference or
"otherness." In the process of change everything necessarily
has a divided and antithetical nature, for it is both itself
and, at the sam e time, becoming som ething else, its "other."
But viewed as a whole, the "other" is simply a develop
ment of the "itself"; the implicit becomes explicit; the possible
actual. This process is a dual one. It involves estrange
ment from the original form and the realization of the
essence in a higher form of existence.
In his system Hegel applied this dialectical logic to the
evolution of the "Absolute," his synonym for the whole
of reality. The Absolute first exists as mere Logical Idea,
self-enclosed like a bud. It breaks out of itself by way of
an inner revolution (just how and why is not clear) to a
completely alienated condition N ature. Hegel saw N ature
as a lifeless dispersed mode of existence in contradiction
to the lively perpetual movement and universal intercon
nection inherent in the Absolute.
This contradiction drives the Idea forw ard through a
prolonged course of development until it emerges from
its m aterial casing and appears as Mind. Mind in turn
passes through a series of stages from crude sensation
to its highest peak in philosophy, and above all in Hegel's
own idealist outlook.
58
T hroughout this complex process alienation plays the

m ost positive role. It is the expression of the Negative
at work. The N egative, forever destroying existing forms
th rough the conflict of opposites, spurs everything on
w ard to a higher mode of existence. F or Hegel a spe
cific kind of alienation m ay be historically necessary at
one stage, even though it is cancelled out at the next
in the universal interplay of the dialectic.
All of this m ay ap p e ar to be a dull chapter in the life
of the G erm an universities of a century and a half ago.
But Hegel saw the development of society as one of the
outcomes of this evolution of the Idea. M oreover, he
traced the course of alienation in hum an history. He noted
such curious items as the fact that hum ans alone of all
the creatures on earth can take the objective conditions
aro u n d them and transform them into a medium of hu
m an ity 's subjective development. Despite the bizarreness
of considering a m aterial process like that to be an ex
pression of the evolution of Idea, such observations, it
will be recognized, have a m odern ring.
Still more, at turning points in their development, Hegel
pointed out, hum ans find themselves in deep conflict with
the w orld aro u n d them. Their own m aterial and spiritual
creations have risen up and passed beyond their control.
Ironically hum ans become enslaved to their own p ro
ductions. All this the great philosopher saw with astound
ing clarity.
Hegel applied the notion of the alienation of hum anity
from itself to the transitional period between the fall of
the Greek city-states and the com ing of Christianity; and
above all to the bourgeois society aro u n d him. E arly in
his career he described industrial society as "a v ast system
of m utual interdependence, a m o vin g life o f the dead.
This system moves hither and yon in a blind elementary
way, and like a wild anim al calls for strong perm anent
control an d curbing." (Jenenser Realphilosophie, p. 237)
He looked to the state to im pose that control over capi
talist competition.
Of still livelier interest to our nuclear age, he had some
s h arp things to say about the institution of private pro p
erty which forces people to live in a world that, although
The Pi'oblern o f Alienation
59
their creation, is opposed to their deepest needs. This

"dead" world, foreign to hum an nature, is governed by
inexorable laws which oppress hum anity and rob it of
freedom.
Hegel also em phasized that the complete subordination
of the individual to the division of labor in commodityproducing society cripples and represses hum an devel
opment. M echanization, the very m eans which should
liberate m an from toil, m akes him still more a slave.
On the political plane, especially in his earlier writings,
Hegel discussed how, in the G erm any of his day, the in
dividual was estranged from the autocratic state because
he could not participate in its affairs.
The very need for philosophy itself, according to Hegel,
springs from these all-em bracing contradictions in which
hum an existence has been plunged. The conflict of society
against nature, of idea against reality, of consciousness
against existence, Hegel generalizes into the conflict be
tween "subject" and "object." This opposition arises from
the alienation of Mind from itself. The w orld of objects,
originally the product of M an's labor and knowledge,
becomes independent and opposed to man. The objective
world becomes dom inated by uncontrollable forces and
overriding laws in which m an can no longer recognize
or realize his true self. At the sam e time, and as a result
of the same process, thought becomes estranged from re
ality. The truth becomes an im potent ideal preserved in
thought alone while the actual w orld functions ap a rt from
its influence.
This brings about an "unhappy consciousness" in which
m an is doomed to frustration unless he succeeds in re
uniting the severed parts of his world. N ature and so
ciety have to be brought under the sway of m an's rea
son so that the sundered elements of his essential self
can be reintegrated. How is this opposition between an
irrational w orld and an ineffectual reason to be over
come? In other w ords, how can the world be made sub
ject to reason and reason itself become effective?
Philosophy in such a period of general disintegration,
Hegel declared, can discover and m ake known the principle
and method to bring about the unity m ankind needs.
60
Reason (we alm ost wrote The New Reasoner) is the au

thentic form of reality in which the antagonism s of subject
and object are eliminated, or rather transm uted into the
genuine unity and universality of m ankind.
Hegel related the opposition of subject and object to
concrete antagonism s. In his own philosophical language
he was struggling to express the consequences of capitalist
conditions where people are misled by a false and distorted
consciousness of their real relations with one another
an d where they cannot m ake their wills effective because
they are overwhelmed by the unm anageable laws of the
m arket.
Hegel further m aintained that the solution of such con
tradictions was a m atter of practice as well as of philo
sophic theory. Inspired by the French Revolution, he
envisaged the need for a sim ilar "reign of reason" in his
own country. But he rem ained a bourgeois thinker who
never transcended his idealist philosophy in viewing the
relations of class society. In his m ost progressive period
Hegel did not offer any practical recom m endations for
overcom ing existing social antagonism s that went beyond
the bounds of bourgeois reform.
It w as only through the subsequent w ork of M arx that
these idealistic reflections of an irratio n al social reality
were placed in their true light. A gainst Hegel's interpreta
tion of alienation, M arx showed w hat the historical origins,
m aterial basis and real nature of this phenom enon were.
M arx began his intellectual life as an ardent Hegelian.
Between 1843 and 1848, under the influence of Feuerbach,
he cleared his mind of w hat he later called "the old junk"
and emerged together with Engels as a full-fledged m a
terialist.
The "humane" socialists are now em barked on the
quixotic venture of reversing this progressive sequence.
They aim to displace the m ature M arx, the thoroughgoing
dialectical m aterialist, with the youthful M arx who had
yet to pass beyond the one-sided m aterialism of Feuerbach.
M arx recognized that the concept of alienation reflected
extremely significant aspects of social life. He also became
aw are that Hegel's idealism and Feuerbach's abstract
H um anism obscured the real historical conditions and
61
social contradictions that had generated the forms of alien

ation.
M arx did not reach his ripest conclusions on this sub
ject all at once but only by successive approxim ations
over decades of scientific study. Between his Hegelian
starting point and his final positions there was an interim
period of discovery, during which he developed his pre
lim inary conclusions.
M arx first undertook the study of political economy,
which occupied the rest of his life, in 1843. He pursued
this task along with a criticism of his Hegelian heritage.
The first results were set down in the Economic and Philo
sophic M anuscripts he wrote prim arily for his own clarifi
cation during 1844. These were published posthum ously
in our own time and did not appear in their first complete
English translation until 1959.*
These essays were M arx's earliest attempt at analyzing
capitalism. In them for the first time he applied the dialec
tical method learned from Hegel to the categories of
political economy. In m any passages his ideas are form u
lated so abstractly and abstrusely that it is not easy to
decipher their m eaning w ithout a g rasp of the term inology
and mode of thought prevalent in G erman classical philos
ophy.
Whereas in his later works ( The Critique o f Political
Econom y, Capital) M arx takes the com modity as the
cell of capitalism , he here puts forw ard alienated labor
as the central concept. He even views private property
as derived from the alienation of labor. It is both the
product of estranged labor, he writes, and the m eans
by which la b o r is estranged from itself. "Just as we have
derived the concept of private property from the concept
of estranged alienated labor by analysis, in the same
way every category of political economy can be evolved
with the help of these two factors; and we shall find again
in each category, for example, trade, competition, capital,
money, only a definite and developed expression of these
first foundations," he declares.
See E c o n o m ic a n d P h ilo so p h ic M a n u sc rip ts o f 1844 by Karl
Marx, published by the F oreign L an gu ages Publishing H ouse,
Moscow.
62
H aving established alienated la b o r as the basis and

beginning of capitalist production, M arx then deduces
the consequences. L abor becomes alienated when the pro
ducer works, not directly for himself or a collective united
by com m on interests, but for another with interests and
aim s opposed to his own.
This antagonistic relation of production injures the w ork
er in m any ways. (1) He is estranged from his own body
which m ust be m aintained as a physical subject, not be
cause it is p a rt of himself, but so that it can function as
an element of the productive process. (2 ) He is estranged
from n ature since n atu ral objects with all their variety
function, not as m eans for his self-satisfaction or cultural
fulfillment, but merely as m aterial m eans for profitable
production. (3) He is estranged from his own peculiar
essence as a hum an being because his special traits and
abilities are not needed, used or developed by his economic
activities which degrade him to the level of a mere physical
force. (4 ) Finally, he is separated from his fellow hum an
beings. "Where m an is opposed to himself, he also stands
o pposed to other men."
Consequently the dispossessed w orker benefits neither
from the activity of his la b o r nor from its product. These
do not serve as means for his enjoyment or fulfillment
as an individual because both are appropriated by some
one other than himself, the capitalist. "If the w orker's
activity is torm ent to himself, it m ust be the enjoyment and
satisfaction of another."
The object which la b o r creates, the la b o r product, be
comes opposed to m an as an alien essence, as a power in
dependent of the producer. "Wage-labor, like private prop
erty, is only a necessary consequence of the alienation of
labor." Society can be em ancipated from both private
p roperty and servitude only by abolishing w age-labor.
M arx honored Hegel for seeing that m an is the result
of his conditions of labor. He found this p rim ary proposi
tion of historical m aterialism in Hegel, though in an
idealist shape. The greatness of the Phenomenology, M arx
observed, lies in the circumstance that "Hegel conceives
the self-production of m an as a process . . ."
M arx criticizes Hegel for seeing only one side of this
63
process, the alienation of consciousness, and neglecting

the most im portant aspect of labor in class society, the
alienation of the actual m an who produces commodities.
Marx accepted Feuerbachs view that Hegel's philosophy
was itself an abstract expression of the alienation of m an
kind from itself. Hegel's Absolute Idealism separated the
thought process from real active thinking persons and
converted it into an independent, all-powerful subject which
absorbed the world into itself. At bottom, it was a sophisti
cated form of religious ideology in which the Logical Idea
replaced God.
In the Hegelian dialectic, N ature, the antithesis to the
Idea, was nothing in and for itself; it was merely a con
cealed and m ysterious em bodiment of the Absolute Idea.
However, M arx, following Feuerbach, pointed out that
this Absolute Idea was itself nothing but "a thing of
thought," a generalized expression for the thinking process
of real individuals dependent on nature.
M arx p ay s tribute to Feuerbach for exposing the religious
essence of Hegel's system and thereby reestablishing the
m aterialist truth that N ature, instead of being an expres
sion of the Idea, is the real basis for thought and the
ultimate source of all ideas.
Hegel, M arx said, discovered "the abstract, logical and
speculative expression for the movement of history." What
Marx sought to do was to uncover the real motive forces
in history (com prising both nature and society in their
development, as he was to em phasize in The German
Ideology) which preceded all theorizing and provided both
the m aterials and the motives for the operations of thought.
M oreover, Hegel h ad m istakenly identified all externali
zation of m an 's vital powers in nature and society with
alienation because it represented an inferior grade of the
Idea's existence. Actually, the objectification of his
capacities is norm al and necessary to the hum an being
and is the m ainspring of all progress. It is perverted into
alienation only under certain historical conditions which
are not eternal.
M any brilliant thoughts are to be found in the pages
of The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. For
example, M arx brings out the differences between the
64
anim al an d hum an senses in a w ay that counterposes

his historical m aterialism to v u lg a r materialism . Sensation
is the basis for hum an knowledge as well as for the
m aterialist theory of knowledge. Although the hum an
sensory equipm ent is anim al in origin, it develops beyond
that. H um an senses pass through an historical, social and
cultural development which endow us with far more dis
crim inating modes of sensation than any known in the
anim al state. "The cultivation of the five senses is the
w ork of the whole history of the w orld to date," he con
cludes.
C apitalism is to be condemned because it blunts sensi
tivity instead of sharpening it. The dealer in gems who
sees only their m arket value, and not the beauty and
unique character of m inerals, "has no m ineralogical sensi
tivity," he writes; he is little different from an anim al
g ru b b in g for food. The task of civilization is to develop
a specifically hum an sensitivity "for the whole wealth of
h u m an and n atu ral essence."
An entire school of c ontem porary American sociologists,
headed by D avid Reisman, h as based its analysis of
the condition of men in "the m ass society" on the fact that
the av erag e person is bor .d and depressed by the drudg
ery of his w ork in factory o r office and finds satisfaction
for his in d ividual needs only in leisure hours. The split
between la b o r and leisure under capitalism was long ago
noted by M arx in these m anuscripts where he pointed
out: "L ab o r is external to the worker, i.e., it does not
belong to his essential being. Therefore he does not af
firm him self in his w ork but denies himself. He does not
feel contented but dissatisfied. He does not develop freely
his physical and spiritual energy but mortifies his body
an d ruins his mind. The w orker therefore only feels him
self to be him self outside his work, and in his w ork he
feels outside himself. He is at hom e when he is not w ork
ing, an d when he is w orking, he is not at home."
M arx did not leave the concept of la b o r as treated in
these early essays. Extending the range of his criticism
of bourgeois political econom y and p robing deeper into
the secrets of capitalist production, he filled out and cor
rected his o riginal presentation. He developed the features
65
and forms of labor into a brilliant constellation of di

versified determinations, reflecting the facets of the manysided relations of production in their historical evolution.
The younger M arx, swayed by Feuerbach's Humanism,
analyzed capitalist relations by counterposing what is
dehumanized to w hat is truly hum an. The later Marx
viewed them in terms of class oppositions.
Most im portant was his discovery of the twofold char
acter of labor: the concrete la b o r which produces usevalues and the abstract labor which produces exchange
value. In abstract labor M arx found the essence of alien
ated lab o r in com piodity-producing societies. His discov
ery, which Engels rightly lauded as M arx's chief con
tribution to the science of political economy, enabled him
to explain the nature of commodities and the source of
value as well as such mysteries as the power of money.
The distinction between the two kinds of labor asserts
itself at every decisive point in his analysis.
M arx took another step beyond his predecessors by
distinguishing between la b o r as a concrete activity which
creates specific use-values and la b o r power, the valueproducing property of labor. He dem onstrated how the
peculiar characteristics of la b o r power as a com modity
m ake capitalist exploitation possible. He also showed that
the exploitation of la b o r in general, under all modes
of class production, is based on the difference between
necessary and surplus labor.
It would require a sum m ary of the whole of Capital
to deal with all of M arx's am plifications of the concept
of labor. The pertinent point is this: the complex relations
between capital and la b o r which were sketched in b road
outline in the early essays were developed into a network
of precise distinctions. The concept of alienated labor was
broken down into elements integrated into a com prehen
sive exposition of the laws of m otion of capitalism.
Before exam ining the specific causes of alienation under
capitalism , it is necessary to note that the phenom enon
is rooted in the whole previous history of hum anity.
The process by which m an becomes oppressed by his
own creations has passed through distinct stages of ev
olution.
66
The m ost prim itive forms of alienation arise from the

disparity between m an 's needs and wishes and his control
over nature. Although they have grow n strong enough
to counterpose themselves as a collective laboring body
ag ain st the n atu ral environm ent, prim itive peoples do not
h ave enough productive forces, techniques and knowledge
to assert much m astery over the world around them.
Their helplessness in m aterial production has its counter
p a rt in the power of m agic and religion in their social life
an d thought. Religion, as Feuerbach explained and M arx
repeated, reverses the real relations between m ankind and
the world. M an created the gods in his own image. But
to the superstitious mind, unaw are of unconscious mental
processes, it appears that the gods have created men. De
luded by such appearances and by social m anipulators
from witch doctors to priests men prostrate themselves
before idols of their own m anufacture. The distance be
tween the gods and the m ass of w orshippers serves as
a gauge for estim ating the extent of m an 's alienation
from his fellow men and his subjugation to the natural
environm ent.
A lienation is therefore first of all a social expression
of the fact that men lack adequate control over the forces
of natu re and have thereby not yet acquired control over
sources of d aily sustenance.
A lienation has been a general feature of hum an history.
The alienation o f labor, however, is peculiar to civilization
an d is bou nd up with the institution of private property.
In prim itive society men are oppressed by nature but
not by the products of their labor.
The ru d im entary alienation observable in the magic
and religion found in sav ag ery and barb arism becomes
o verlaid and subsequently overwhelmed by another and
higher types of alienation engendered by the conditions of
class society. With the development of agriculture, stock
breeding and craftsm anship, the most advanced sec
tors of m ankind became less directly dependent upon
raw nature for their food supplies. They increased their
sources of wealth and reduced nature's oppression.
But civilized m a n 's grow ing control over nature was
attended by a loss of control over the basic conditions
67
of his economic activity. So long as production rem ained

simple but collective, as in primitive tribal life, the pro
ducers h ad control over their process of production and
the disposition of their product. With the extension of the
social division of labor, more and m ore goods became
converted into commodities and entered exchange in the
market.
The producers thereby lost control over their product as
it became subject to the laws of the com modity market.
In turn, these laws came to rule the producers to such
an extent that in time men themselves became commodities
to be bought and sold. Slavery was the first organized
system o f alienated labor; wage labor will be the last.
Wage la b o r is a special type of alienated labor. In
this mode of production the laborer becomes the victim
of the w orld market, a slave to the law of supply and
demand, to such a degree that he can stand idle and
his dependents starve when there is no dem and for his
lab o r power as a commodity.
The historical groundw ork for the alienation suffered
by the w orking class is private property in the means
of production. This enables the owners to appropriate
the surplus product of the laborers. There is nothing m ys
terious about the m aterial origin of alienation in class
society. It comes about as a consequence of the separation
of the producers from the conditions of production and
thereby from w hat they produce. When the laborers lose
control of the m aterial m eans of production, they forfeit
control over their lives, their liberties and their m eans
of development.
Hegel pointed this out when he wrote in the Philosophy
o f Right: "By alienating the whole of my time, as crystalized in my work, and everything I produced, I would
be m aking another's property the substance of my being,
my universal activity and actuality, my personality."
This second kind of alienation reaches its apex under
capitalism, where every individual involved in the network
of production and exchange is ruled by the laws of the
world m arket. These function as coercive external powers
over which even the m asters of capital have no control,
as the fluctuations of the business cycle dem onstrate.
68
The influence of the earlier type of alienation, on the

other hand, based upon lack of com m and over the forces
of nature, lessens as technology and science expand with
the grow th of the productive forces from one stage of civil
ization to the next. As M arx wrote: "The miracles of God
become superfluous because of the miracles of industry."
T oday, when m a n 's conquest of nature is conclusive,
though far from completed, the influence of unconquered
natu re as a factor in producing alienation is sm all com
p ared to its economic causes.
The alierutions im posed by capital upon la b o r rein
force an d intensify those form s of alienation carried over
from the b a rb a ro u s past by addin g to them estrangem ents
b red by capitalism 's own peculiar type of exploitation. It
is necessary to analyze the economic foundations of capi
talist society in order to b ring out its characteristic pro
cesses of alienation.
(1 ) C apitalism emerges as a distinct and separate eco
nomic form ation by w renching aw ay w orking people from
precapitalist conditions of production. Before capitalism
could be established, the m ass of direct producers had
to be separated from the m aterial m eans of production
a n d transform ed into propertyless proletarians. The p ro
cesses of expropriation whereby the peasants were up
rooted from the land and the social elements fashioned
for the w age la b o r required for capitalist exploitation
in Western Europe were sum m arized by M arx in Chapter
XIX of Capital.
(2 ) However, the alienation of the producers only begins
with the p rim ary accum ulation of capital; it is continually
reproduced on an ever-extended scale once capital takes
over industry. Even before he physically engages in the
productive process, the w age-w orker finds his la b o r taken
aw ay from him by the stipulations of the la b o r contract.
The w orker agrees to h an d over his la b o r power to the
capitalist in return for the paym ent of the prevailing wage.
The em ployer is then free to use and exploit this la b o r as
he pleases.
(3 ) D uring the productive process, by virtue of the pe
culiar divisions of la b o r in capitalist enterprise, all the
knowledge, will and direction is concentrated in the cap
69
italist and his superintendents. The worker is converted

into a mere physical accessory factor of production. "The
capitalist represents the unity and will of the social w orking
body" while the workers who m ake up that body are
"dehumanized" and degraded to the status of things. The
plan, the process, and the aim of capitalist production
all confront the w orkers as alien, hostile, dom inating
powers. The auto w orkers on the assembly line can testi
fy to the truth of this fact.
(4) At the end of the industrial process the product
which is its result does not belong to the workers who
made it but to the capitalist who owns it. In this way
the product of labor is torn from the w orkers and goes
into the m arket to be sold.
(5) The capitalist market, which is the totality of com
modities and money in their circulation, likewise confronts
the w orking class whether as sellers of their labor pow
er or as buyers of com m odities as an alien power. Its
laws of operation dictate how much they shall get for
their lab o r power, whether it is saleable at all, w hat their
living stan d ards shall be.
The w orld m arket is the ultim ate arbiter of capitalist
society. It not only rules over the wage-slaves; it is greater
than the m ost powerful group of capitalists. The overrid
ing laws of the m arket dom inate all classes like uncontrol
lable forces of nature which b ring weal or woe reg ard
less of anyone's plans or intentions.
(6 ) In addition to the fundam ental antagonism between
the exploiters and the exploited, the competition charac
teristic of capitalism 's economic activities pits the mem
bers of both classes against one another. The capitalists
strive to get the better of their rivals so that the bigger
and more efficient devour the sm aller and less productive.
The w orkers who go into the la b o r m arket to sell their
lab o r power are compelled to buck one another for avail
able jobs. In the shop and factory they are often obliged
to compete against one another under the goad of piece
work.
Both capitalists and w orkers try to mitigate the con
sequences of their competition by com bination. The cap
italists set up trusts and m onopolies; the w orkers o rg a
70
nize into trade unions. But however much these opposing

forms of class organization modify and restrict compe
tition, they cannot abolish it. The competitiveness elimi
nated from a m onopolized industry springs up m ore vio
lently in the struggles between one aggregation of capital
and another. The workers in one craft, category or country
are pitted, contrary to their will, against the workers of
another.
These economic circumstances generate unbridled indi
vidualism , egotism, and self-seeking throughout bourgeois
society. The m embers of this society, whatever their status,
have to live in an atm osphere of m utual hostility rather
than of solidarity.
Thus the real basis of the forms of alienation within
capitalist society is found in the contradictory relations
of its mode of production and in the class antagonism s
arisin g from them.
Alienation, like all relations, is a two-sided affair and
its o peration has contradictory consequences. What is taken
from the dispossessed is vested in the dispossessors. In
religion the feebleness of men on earth is complemented
by the omnipotence of the deity who is endowed with all
the capacities real people lack. His representatives in so
ciety, from the sham ans to the clergy, exploit this situa
tion to their advantage.
In economics, the servitude of the laborer is the basis of
the freedom of the m aster; the poverty of the m any makes
the wealth of the few. In politics, the absence of popular
self-rule is m ade manifest in the despotism of the state.
In The Econom ic an d Philosophic M anuscripts o f 1844
M arx came to grips for the first time with the mysteries
of money. In capitalist society, he rem arks, money has
displaced religion as the m ajor source of alienation, just
as it has displaced the deity as the m ajor object of a d o ra
tion an d attraction. The money form of wealth stands
like a whimsical tyrant between the needs of men and
their fulfillment. The possessor of money can satisfy the
most exorbitant desires while the penniless individual can
not take care of the m ost elem entary needs of food, cloth
ing and shelter.
Money has the m agical power of turning things into
their opposites. "Gold! Yellow, glittering, precious gold,"
71
can, as Shakespeare said, "make black, white; foul, fair;

wrong, right; base, noble; old, young; coward, valiant."
The person without artistic taste can buy and h ang pictures
in his mansion, or put them in a safety vault, while the
creator and the genuine appreciator cannot view or enjoy
them. The meanest scoundrel can purchase adm iration
from sycophants while w orthy individuals go scorned and
unnoticed.
Under capitalism, where everything enters the field of
exchange and becomes the object of buying and selling,
a m an's worth comes to be estimated, not by his really
praisew orthy abilities or actions, but by his bank account.
A m an is "worth" w hat he owns and a m illionaire is
"worth" incom parably more than a pauper. A Rothschild
is esteemed where a M arx is hated. In this cesspool of
universal venality all genuine hum an values and standards
are distorted and desecrated.
Later, in the first chapter of Capital, M arx unveiled
the secrets of these m agical powers of money by tracing
them to the forms of value acquired by the com modity
in the course of its evolution. The fetishistic character
of money is derived from the fetishistic character
of the com modity form of value which expresses the rela
tions between independent producers through the medium
of things. The fetish of capital which com m ands m en's
lives and la b o r is the ultimate expression of this fetishism
of commodities.
If money in the form of capital is the suprem e fetish of
bourgeois society, the state which enforces the economic
conditions of capitalist exploitation comes a close second.
State com pulsion is m ost harshly manifested in its penal
powers, its tax powers, and in its power to conscript for
m ilitary service. The identity of the ord in a ry citizen has
to be validated by documents stam ped by governm ent
officials. He needs a certificate to vouch for his birth
and to prove that he graduated from school; that he is
m arried or divorced; that he m ay travel to other coun
tries.
The ty ran n y of money and the state over the lives of
people is reducible in the last analysis to the relative pov
erty of the social order.
The alienations em bedded in the economic foundations
72
of capitalism manifest themselves in m yriad ways in

other p arts of the social structure. They are crystallized
in the opposition between the state and the members of
society. The unity of U. S. capitalism , for example, is
em bodied in a state organization which is dom inated
and directed by representatives of the ruling monopolists.
The alienation of this governm ent from the people in
o u r do llar dem ocracy is the m ain theme of a study of
the rulers and the ruled in the United States made by
Professor C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite. Its opening
p a ra g ra p h reads: "The powers of ord in a ry men are cir
cum scribed by the everyday w orlds in which they live,
yet even in these rounds of job, fam ily and neighborhood,
they often seem driven by forces they can neither under
stan d n o r govern. 'G reat changes' are beyond their con
trol, but affect their conduct and outlook none the less.
The very fram ew ork of m odern society confines them to
projects not their own, but from every side, such changes
now press upon the men and w omen of the m ass society,
who accordingly feel that they are without purpose in an
epoch in which they are w ithout power."
Mills sum m ed up the extreme polarization of power in
o u r society by declaring that the big business men, states
men an d b rass hats com posing the power elite appear
to the im potent m ass as "all that we are not." To be sure,
even in the m id-1950s, the population was not so stultified
and inert as Mills and his fellow academ ic sociologists
m ade out. The Black struggle for equality and the periodic
strikes am o ng the industrial w orkers indicated that much
w as stirring below the surface.
But it cannot be denied that the power of la b o r is largely
untapped, unorganized, and so misdirected that its poten
tial rem ains hidden even from its possessors. The policies
of the union leaders help the spokesm en for "the power
elite" to keep the people from envisioning the immense
political strength they could wield for their own cause.
They thereby keep the w orking class alienated from its
rightful place in A merican political life as leader and
org an izer of the whole nation. This role is handed over
by default to the capitalist parties.
However, the dispossession of the w orking class from
73
its historical functions will not be maintained forever.

Sooner or later, the labor movement will be obliged to
tear loose from its subordination to alien class political
organizations and form its independent political party.
This will be the beginning of a process of political selfrealization, an ascent to the position of suprem acy now
held by the capitalist minority. If today the plutocracy
is, to the masses, "all that we are not," the struggle for
socialism can bring about the Great Reversal when "we
who have been naught, shall be all."
The basic antagonism s in economics and politics dis
tort the relations of people in all other dom ains of life
under capitalism from their em otional responses to one
another up to their m ost general ideas. This has been
felt and expressed in much of the art and literature of the
bourgeois epoch. The estrangem ent of the creative artist
from the bourgeois environment, which buffets him be
tween crass com mercialism and cruel indifference, has
been a perennial scandal. The cries of protest in the works
of such contem porary writers as H enry Miller and N orm an
Mailer testify that this rem ains a running sore.
Something new has been added to this schism between
the intellectuals and the ruling class in our own day.
This is the breach that suddenly opened up between the
scientists and the m onopolists with the advent of the atomic
bomb.
Capitalist society in its progressive period was the foster
father of m odern n atu ral science and for several centuries
the two pulled forw ard together. Most scientists in the
English-speaking w orld took the preestablished harm ony
of the two so much for granted that they went about
their work without concern over its social applications
and ultimate consequences. The chain reaction issuing
from the release of nuclear energy blasted them out of
this blind comfort.
From 1942 on, nuclear physicists have found them
selves in the m ost excruciating dilemma. They were dedi
cated to the discovery and dissem ination of the truth for
the good of all m ankind. Yet the militarists turned their
lab o r and its results against everything which they, as
scientists and scholars, m ost cherished. "Freedom of

science" became a mockery when the results of their
research were m ade top secret and atomic scientists were
forcibly isolated "for reasons of state" from their fellows.
The scientists became vassalized to a m ilitary machine
serving predatory im perialist purposes, just as the indus
trial w orkers form p art of the profit-m aking apparatus.
Instead of helping to create a better life, their achievements
dealt quicker death. Their greater com m and over m atter
an d energy w as cancelled by a total lack of control over
its social uses.
W hat could be m ore inhum an than for the scientist to
become the unwilling agent of the destruction of his own
kind and the poisoner of the unborn? No w onder the
m ost sensitive and social-minded have cried out against
this violation of their vocation, this im permissible injury
to their inner selves. Some have refused as "conscientious
objectors" to participate in w ar-w ork; others suffered
nervous breakdow ns; a few even committed suicide.
Those clustered aro u n d The Bulletin o f the Atom ic Scien
tists have been searching without success for an effec
tive political solution. Some speak of "their collective guilt,"
although they are the victims and not the guilty ones.
The responsibility for their intolerable predicam ent rests
entirely upo n the ruling im perialists who have thrust them
into this alienated condition.
This diagnosis indicates the only w ay in which they
can overcom e that alienation. That is to join with those
social forces which are opposed to the im perialists and
obliged to fight them.
While the physical health of the populations in the West
ern World h as been im proving, their m ental and em otional
condition h as been deteriorating. This is the thesis of the
recent book The Sane Society in which Erich From m
undertakes a study of the psychopathology of m odern
life. His w ork is particularly pertinent because the Socialist
H um anism he advocates is a psychological counterpart
of the more literary type of H um anism found in Dissent
and The New Reasoner. From m correctly takes issue
with those analysts who proceed from the prem ise that
capitalism is rational and the task of the individual is to
"adjust," that is, to conform to its special requirements.
74
75
On the contrary, he asserts, the system is inherently ir

rational, as its effects demonstrate. If people are to live
productively and at peace with themselves and one another,
capitalism has to go.
From m borrow s the concept of alienation from M arx's
early writings as the central tool in his analysis of what
is w rong with the sterile and standardized acquisitive
society of the twentieth century and the m ain characteristics
it produces in people. He m akes m any astute observations
on the ways in which capitalism m angles hum an per
sonalities.
He professes to criticize capitalism from a socialist stand
point and as an adm irer of M arx. But he turns M arx
upside down by declaring that M arx h ad a concept of
man "which was essentially a religious and m oral one."
And From m himself tries to replace materialism with
m oralizing as the theoretical basis for socialism.
This former psychoanalyst denies that the basic cause
of the sickness of m odern society is rooted in the relations
of production, as M arxism teaches. They are just as much
due to spiritual and psychological causes, he writes. Social
ism has to be infused with the wisdom of the great religious
leaders who taught that the inner nature of m an has to
be transform ed as much as his external circumstances.
He agrees with the Gospels that "the kingdom of Heaven
is within you." "Socialism, and especially M arxism, has
stressed the necessity of the inner changes in hum an be
ings, w ithout which economic change can never lead to
the 'g ood society.'"
N othing less will do the job than "simultaneous changes
in the spheres of industrial and political organization, of
spiritual and psychological orientation, of character struc
ture and of cultural activities." His practical p rogram for
curing the ills of m odern society rejects the conquest of
power by the w orkers and the nationalization of industry
and planned economy. That is the way to totalitarian
regim entation, in his opinion.
He proposes the establishm ent of small agricultural
and industrial "Communities of Work" as hothouses in
which the la b o rato ry conditions will be created for the
cultivation of the good life. Capitalist society is to be re
76
constructed and hum anity regenerated through utopian

colonies like those advocated by Owen, Fourier, Proud
hon and K ropotkin, which were tried and found wanting
over a century ago in the United States.
Thus the "C om m unitarian Socialism" of this H um anist
turns out to be a faded copy of the utopian fantasies
of the last century. It is a form of flight from the real
facts of m odern technology which dem and large-scale
p roduction on a universal scale to sustain and elevate
the ex p an d ing population of the globe. It is also an eva
sion of the pressing tasks involved in elim inating the
evils of capitalist reaction and Stalinism, because it alien
ates itself in theory and practice from revolutionary M arx
ism. This is the only social movement, class power and
political p ro g ram that can effectively abolish the rule
of m onopoly capitalism , u proot Stalinism, and create
the m aterial setting for a free and equal social system.
Are the alienations from which m an suffers incurable?
This is the contention of the Catholic Church, pessimistic
Protestant theologians like Reinhold N iebuhr, existentialist
followers of K ierkegaard, and some interpreters of Freud.
They picture m an as eternally torn and torm ented by
irreconcilable aim s and impulses, doom ed to despair and
d isappointm ent in the unending w ar between his deepest
spiritual aspirations and his insuperable lim itations as
an earth b o u nd m ortal.
The historical m aterialists squarely oppose all such
preachers of original sin. M ankind does not have eternal
insurm ountable failings which have to be com pensated
for by the fictitious consolations of the church, the m ys
tical intuitions of idealist philosophers, or the infinitely
repeated but ever defeated efforts at self-transcendence
of the existentialists. The real alienations which cripple
and w arp hum anity have ascertainable historical roots
and m aterial causes. F a r from being eternal, they have,
as h as been indicated, already shifted their axis in the
course of social development from the contest between
society and nature to the conflicts within the social
structure.
These internal social antagonism s are not everlasting.
They do not spring from any intrinsic and inescapable
77
evil in the nature of m ankind as a species. They were

generated by specific historico-social conditions which have
been uncovered and can be explained.
Now that hum anity has acquired superiority over n a
ture through trium phs of technology and science, the next
great step is to gain collective control over the blind forces
of society. There is only one conscious agency in presentday life strong enough and strategically placed to shoulder
and carry through this im perative task, says M arxism.
That is the force of alienated labor incorporated in the
industrial w orking class.
The m aterial m eans for liberating m ankind can be
brought into existence only through the w orld socialist
revolution which will concentrate political and economic
power in the hands of the w orking people. Planned econo
my of a socialist type on an international scale will not
only enable hum anity to regain m astery over the m eans
of life; it will im m easurably enhance that collective con
trol. The reconstruction of social relations will complete
the m astery of nature for social purposes initiated under
class society, and thereby abolish the conditions which
in the p ast permitted, and even necessitated, the subju
gation of m an to m an, the rule of the m any by the few.
Once everyone's p rim ary needs are capable of satis
faction, abundance reigns, and the la b o r time required
to produce the necessities of life is reduced to the minimum,
then the stage will be set for the abolition of all forms of
alienation and for the rounded development of all per
sons, not at the expense of one another, but in fraternal
relation.
The abolition of private property m ust be followed by
the wiping out of national barriers. The resultant increase
in the productive capacities of society will prepare the
way for the elim ination of the traditional antagonism s
between physical and intellectual workers, between the
inhabitants of the city and the country, between the ad
vanced and the undeveloped nations.
These are the indispensable prerequisites for building
a harm onious, integrated, inw ardly stable and constantly
developing system of social relations. When all com pul
sory inequalities in social status, in conditions of life
78
and labor, and in access to the m eans of self-development

are done aw ay with, then the m anifestations of these m a
terial inequalities in the alienation of one section of so
ciety from another will wither aw ay. This in turn will fos
ter the conditions for the form ation of harm onious in
dividuals no longer at w ar with each other or within
themselves.
Such are the rad ian t prospects held out by the socialist
revolution and its reorganization of society as projected
by the m asters of M arxism.
This, too, w as the goal tow ard which the Soviet Union,
the p roduct of the first successful w orkers revolution, was
h eading under the Stalinist regime, honest Comm unists
believed. H ad they not been assured by Stalin that so
cialism h ad already been realized in the Soviet Union
an d it w as on the w ay to the higher stage of com munism?
K hrushchev p arroted these claims. But his own dis
closures at the Twentieth Congress and the outbursts of
opposition in the Soviet zone since then have ripped
th rough the delusion that a socialist society has already
been consum m ated there. The false ideological structure
fabricated by the Com m unist P arty machine lies shattered.
How are the pieces to be put together again, and in w hat
p attern?
The first thing that h as to be done is to go back and
check w hat actually exists in the Soviet U nion at its pres
ent point of development with the fundam entals of M arx
ist theory. In their own w ay some of the "humane" social
ists try to do this. "It was assumed," Thom pson, editor
of The New Reasoner, writes, "that all forms of hum an
oppression were rooted, ultimately, in the economic op
pression arising from the private ownership of the means
of production; and that once these were socialized, the
ending of the other oppressions would rapidly ensue."
(My italics.)
This proposition of historical m aterialism retains its
full validity, even though the H um anist critics question
it. What, then, went w rong? Taken by itself, this historical
generalization is an abstract stan d a rd which has to be
wedded to existing facts and their state of development in
o rd er to become concrete and fruitful. The essence o f the
79
matter lies in the verbal modifier "rapidly." Between the

ending of capitalist private ownership and the elevation
of the nationalized m eans of production to the level of
socialist abundance there has to be a transition period
in which features carried over from the old bourgeois order
are intermingled with the fundam ental institutions of the
new society in the m aking.
In the case of the Soviet Union this intermediate period
was neither so short nor so favorable in its setting as
the forecasts of M arx and Lenin anticipated. This historical
stage has stretched out over four agonizingly difficult
decades and is still far from concluded. The obligation
of a scientific socialist is to study the real conditions of
the economic and social development of the first w orkers
state over these forty years in the light of all the guiding
generalizations of his method. He must inquire to what
extent the m aterial circumstances have approached the
theoretical norm ; wherein they fell short and why; and
then determine the w ays and m eans required to bridge
the gap between the existing state of affairs and the ideal
standard.
Thom pson and his fellow H um anists, however, dism ayed
by the ugly features of Stalinism suddenly bared to their
vision, proceed quite differently. They carelessly toss out
the historical generalizations, which condense within them
selves an immense wealth of experience and analysis of
social development, along with their disfigured expres
sions in real life. This is not the first time that well-inten
tioned radicals, throw n off balance by the contradiction
between the stan d a rd s of w hat a w orkers state should be
and its political degeneration under the Stalinist regime,
have rejected both the theoretical norm and the existing
reality. After having been cradled so long in illusions,
they cannot face the objective historical facts of the So
viet structure.
M arxist sociology, however, dem ands that the facts as
they are be taken as the starting point for theory and
action. What are these facts?
In June 1957 K hrushchev swore over TV that there
are no contradictions in Soviet society. This was no more
credible than his assertion that all was well with the new
80
"collective leadership" shortly before Molotov, M alenkov,

K aganovitch and other dignitaries were cashiered. The
m ore prudent Mao Tse-tung adm itted that certain types
of contradiction can exist between the governm ent and the
people in the w orkers states but that those in China, and
by inference the Soviet Union, are exclusively of the nonantagonistic, non-violent kind.
The divergences between the bureaucrats and the masses
in the Soviet Union which have produced the all-power
ful states give the lie to these theoretical pretensions of
the leaders in Moscow and Peking. How is this estrange
ment between the rulers and the ruled to be explained?
The tak in g of power by the w orkers and public owner
ship of the m eans of production, especially in backw ard
countries, cannot in and of itself and all at once usher in
socialism. These achievements sim ply lay down the political
and legal conditions for the construction of the new society.
In ord er to arrive at socialism, the productive forces have
to be prom oted to the point where consum er goods are
cheaper and more plentiful than under the m ost benef
icent capitalism .
This cannot be attained within the confines of a single
country, as the orthodox Stalinists claim, or by adding
up separated national units, each following "its own road
to socialism," as the dissident Stalinists m aintain. The
p overty in consum er goods arising from the inferior pro
ductivity of the economy divorced from w orld resources
is the m aterial source for the grow th and maintenance of
m alig n an t bureaucratic tum ors within the m ost "liberal"
of the w orkers states.
In principle, in essence, the prim e causes of the aliena
tion of la b o r under capitalism private property in the
m eans of p roduction and the anarchy of the profit system
h ave been eradicated in the Soviet countries. Thanks to
nationalization of basic industry, control of foreign trade
and planned economy, the w orking people there are no
longer separated from the m aterial means of production
but are reunited with them in a new and higher form.
However, these anti-capitalist m easures and methods do
not dispose of the problem s of Soviet economy. F a r from
it. To u proot the social alienations inherited from the b a r
b a ro u s past, the w orkers states require not only a powerful
81
heavy industry but also a well-proportioned economy

that can provide the necessities and comforts of life in
increasing volume to all sections of the people.
Not one of the existing post-capitalist states has raised
its economy anywhere near that point. These states have
not yet even approached the productivity in the sphere
of subsistence and the m eans of culture attained by the
most advanced capitalist countries. The prevailing
scarcities have resulted in tense struggles am ong the
various sectors of their population over the division of
the restricted national income. In these struggles the bu
reaucratic caste which has cornered all the instrum ents
of political power plays the com m anding role. The rulers
decide who gets w hat and how much. They never forget
to place themselves at the head of the table.
There is no exploitation of labor as in capitalist society.
But there are sharp distinctions between the haves, who
make up a sm all m inority, and the have-nots, the m ajority
of the w orking population. The manifest inequalities in the
distribution of available goods and amenities erode the
ties of solidarity between various parts of the population
and dig deep-going differences in their living standards,
even where these are som ew hat im proved. In this sense,
the product of their la b o r still escapes the control of the
producers themselves. When it enters the dom ain of dis
tribution, their production passes under the control of the
uncontrolled bureaucracy. In this w ay their own produc
tion, concentrated in the hands of omnipotent adm inistra
tors, once again confronts the m asses as an alien and
opposing force.
Herein is the principal source, the m aterial basis, of the
alienation of rulers and ruled in the degenerated and
deformed w orkers states of the Soviet zone. Their antagon
isms express the grow th of two opposing tendencies in
the economic structure: one carried over from the bour
geois past, the other p reparing the socialist future. The
socialist foundations of nationalized industry and planned
economy in the field of production are yoked to bureau
cratically adm inistered bourgeois standards which deter
mine the m aldistribution of the inadequate supplies of
consum er goods.
The development of these two contradictory tendencies
82
is responsible for the friction which threatens to flare up

into explosive conflicts.
Why don't the w orkers have control over the distribu
tion of their product? Because they have either lost direct
dem ocratic control over the state apparatus, as in the
Soviet Union, or have yet to acquire it, as in the Eastern
E uropean satellites and China. Just as the w orkers should
enjoy higher living stan d ard s under socialism than under
capitalism , so in a norm al w orkers state they should p a r
ticipate far m ore fully in the adm inistration of public
functions, enjoy m ore freedom and have more rights than
under the m ost dem ocratic of the bourgeois regimes.
There was a foretaste, and a solemn pledge, that such
w ould be the case in the seething dem ocracy that charac
terized the first years of the Soviet Republic. The subse
quent political victory of the bureaucratic upstarts reduced
to zero the dem ocratic functioning of the Com m unist Party,
the trad e unions, the Soviets, the youth and cultural o rg an
izations, the arm y and other institutions. The powers and
rights supposedly guaranteed to the people by the Soviet
C onstitution were in practice nullified by the centralized
caste g o verning through S talin's one-m an dictatorship.
This autocratic system of political repression fortified
the economic suppression. T hrough the spy system and
the secret police, the jails and concentration camps, the
p enal pow ers of the state were directed far less against
the forces of the overturned order than against the w orkers
who were the bearers of the new order.
Instead of being an agency for carrying out the decisions
of the people, the ultra-bureaucratized state confronted the
w orkers and peasants, the intellectuals and youth, as well
as the subject nationalities, as a parasitic, oppressive and
hostile force which they yearn to throw off their backs.
Lenin envisaged, and the p ro g ram of the Bolsheviks
stated, that the w orkers w ould control and m anage in
d ustry th rough their elected representatives. Instead, the
division of economic functions which excludes the w orkers
under capitalism from exercising their initiative, intelli
gence an d will h as been recreated in new forms under
the bureaucratic m aladm inistration of the Soviet economy.
83
"The universal brain" which supervises production is no

longer the capitalists but it is also not yet the workers
as it should be under a genuine Soviet democracy. The
hierarchy of bureaucrats arrogated all m ajor powers of
decision to themselves under the successive five-year plans.
Orders were issued from the single centralized com m and
post in Moscow, even on matters of detail. All science and
judgm ent were vested in appointed officials. Decentraliza
tion of industrial m anagem ent since Stalin's death has
modified but not essentially changed this setup.
The w orkers neither propose nor dispose freely of their
energies in the labor process. They do not initiate the
plan, participate in its form ulation, decide its allotments,
apply, oversee, and check up on its operation and results.
They are relegated to the role of passive objects, subjected
to unrem itting exhortations and harsh forms of pressure
to perform their tasks better.
The workers on the job are speeded up by means of
piece-work and a rb itrary setting of w ork norm s. Until
the reforms of the late-1950s they were chained to their
jobs in the factories by w orkbooks and internal passports
and liable to severe penalties for infractions of the rules
and for being minutes late to work. They have no right
to strike against intolerable conditions.
Meanwhile they see the m ultiplication of parasites in
directing positions and gross m ism anagem ent of the n a
tion's resources. Reports by Soviet officials themselves have
cited m any instances of such industrial waste and dis
organization.
Thus the plan of production, which should be collectively
adopted and carried through by the producing masses,
appears as an alien pattern im posed upon them by heart
less functionaries in disregard of their wishes and wel
fare.
The Soviet bureaucracy is itself the living em bodiment
of a gigantic fraud. This privileged, anti-socialist force
is obliged to p arad e as the representative and continuator
of the greatest movement for equality and justice in history
while riding roughshod over the most elementary needs
and feelings of the w orking people. This immense dis
84
parity between its progressive pretentions and its reac

tio n ary course is at the bottom of the hypocrisy and
deceit that m ark Stalinized regimes.
Their "dictatorship of the lie" perm eated every depart
ment of Soviet life. F rom the top to the lower depths the
Soviet people were forced to lead double lives: one for
public show conform ing to the official line of the m o
ment; the other, of suppressed resentment and frustra
tion at their inability to express their real thoughts and
em otions lest they be handed over to the Inquisition.
They became alienated from the regime which alienated
them from their deepest thoughts and feelings and from
one another. "The w orst in o u r system w as not the poverty,
the lack of the m ost essential necessities, but the fact that
this system m ade life one g reat big lie, having to listen to
lies, to read lies every ho u r of the day, all d ay long, and
being forced to lie oneself in turn," a nam eless Budapest
intellectual com plained to a G erm an reporter.
The revulsion ag ain st such spiritual degradation was
one of the m ain causes behind the uprising of H ungarian
an d Polish intellectuals and youth. It is also one of the
m ain themes of the newly aw akened, critical-minded genera
tion of Soviet writers. They are articulating as best they
can the ran k lin g protest against regim entation of cultural,
scientific and artistic activities; against the suffocating at
m osphere of double-talking and double-dealing; against
official im postures that not only stifle creative w ork but
m ake even norm alized existence difficult.
In the "People's Democracies" of Eastern Europe, in the
Baltic countries, the U kraine and other oppressed nations
within the Soviet U nion itself there is another source of
resentment: the grievance ag ain st a Great Russian regime
which governs heedless of the special dem ands, traditions,
autonom y and interests of the oppressed nationality.
Religion is p rim arily the product of m ankind's lack of
control over the forces of nature and society. The socialist
m ovem ent has as one of its objectives the abolition of
the m aterial conditions which perm it such degrading fic
tions to stunt people's outlooks and cram p their lives.
The influence of o rthodox religion has been considerably
curtailed by atheist education in the Soviet Union since
85
the Revolution. But in its stead there arose that secular

"cult of the individual," the deification of Stalin. This revival
of idolatry is all the more startling and paradoxical be
cause it emerged, not from the m ost unenlightened strata
of the population, but on the very heights of the ruling
Communist P arty which was avowedly guided by the
materialist philosophy of M arxism. The w orking class
anthem, the Internationale, says: "We need no god-given
saviors." Yet the Soviet peoples and the Comm unist parties
were indoctrinated with the m yth of the infallibility of the
all-wise "savior" in the Kremlin.
How did the practices of the Rom an and Byzantine
empires, which deified their em perors, become duplicated
in the first w orkers state?
The answer is not to be found in the exceptional virtues
o r vices of Stalin but rather in the role he performed for
the privileged bureaucratic caste. H aving elevated itself
as the sole ruling power, it could no m ore practice
dem ocracy within its own circle than it could permit
dem ocracy in the country as a whole. It was necessary
to find other means of solving the internal problem s and
conflicts. The m eans h ad to be in consonance with the
methods of rule: autocratic, violent and deceitful.
Stalin took suprem e com m and, and held it unchallenged
for so long, because he best fulfilled the assigned function
of the ruthless, all-powerful, omniscient arbiter. Just as
the bureaucracy settled everything in the country, "the
m an of steel" decided everything within the bureaucracy
and for it.
The power of the gods, indeed, their very existence,
was at bottom derived from the powerlessness of the
people in the face of society and nature. So the alm ighty
power of the idolized Stalin w as based upon the total
usurpation of power from the people. The cult of the
individual, so persistently inculcated for decades, was
its end-product. The raising of Stalin to superhum an
heights was the other side of the political degradation
of the Soviet workers.
The breakup of the cult of the individual has been
brought ab out by the reverse process: the grow ing strength
of the Soviet w orking class and the w eakening of the
86
positions of the bureaucracy as a result of the postw ar

developments. Stalin's heirs are trying without much
success to substitute the m ore im personal cult of the
b u reau cracy under the title of "the collective leadership"
for the dow ngraded cult of the individual.
When the people get off their knees, the high and mighty
rulers no longer loom so large. As the w orkers regain
their self-confidence and feel their collective strength, their
form er p ro stration before fabricated idols vanishes. The
ou trag ed revolutionists of B udapest who pulled down
the statue of Stalin on the first day of their uprising showed
by that sym bolic act the fate in store for all the bureau
cratic overlords.
The experience of the post-capitalist regimes over the
p ast forty years h as shown that the danger of bureau
cratic distortion and degeneration of the w orkers states
in the tran sitional period from capitalism to socialism
is genuine.
This dan ger does not flow from any innate evil in a
h u m an n ature which h as an unslakable thirst for power,
as the m oralizers insist. It arises from the surrounding
m aterial conditions, from the inadequacy of the powers
of production to satisfy the w ants of the people, even
under the m ost progressive social forms. This economic
situation enables the specialists in adm inistration to m ount
once m ore upon the backs of the masses and erect their
regime, for a time, into an instrum ent of oppression. The
m ore im poverished and undeveloped the country is, the
m ore m enacing this danger becomes. While overproduction
is the curse of capitalist economy, underproduction is the
curse of the socialized economies.
The causes and character of the m alad y which has in
fected the first w orkers states indicate the m easures that
m ust be taken to counteract it, so far as that is possible
under the given circum stances.' The prescription fo r the
cure is nothing less than dem ocratic control o f both the
g o vernm ent and the econom y by the m asses o f working
people.
The real power m ust be exercised through councils freely
elected by the m anual and intellectual w orkers of city and
country. Their dem ocratic rights should include freedom
87
of organization and p ro p ag an d a by all parties which

recognize and abide by the gains of the revolution; freedom
of the press; all public functionaries to be under the control
of the electorate with the right of recall of representatives
on all levels.
There must be such political reforms as the restoration
of dem ocracy within the w orkers' parties with control
of the leadership and policies by their members; the restric
tion of the income of officials to that of the most skilled
workers; the draw ing of the people into the adm inistration
of public functions; the abolition of the secret police, inter
nal passports, labor cam ps for political dissenters and
other abom inations.
In the economic dom ain the workers m ust have control
over national planning and its execution on all levels and
at all stages so that timely reviews can be m ade of results
in the light of actual experience. Wage standards and other
m eans of distribution m ust be revised so that inequalities
can be reduced to the minimum. The trade unions should
have the right to strike in order to safeguard the workers
against m istakes and abuses of their governm ent.
All nationalities should have the right to be independent
or to federate, if desired, in a fraternal and equal associa
tion of states.
Such m easures would add up to a revolutionary change
in the structure and operation of the existing w orkers'
states, a salutary change from bureaucratic autocracy to
w orkers' dem ocracy.
How is such a transform ation to be accomplished? Not
by concessions doled out from above by "enlightened ab
solutism" o r a frightened officialdom but through direct
action by the w orking people themselves. They will have
to take by revolutionary m eans the rights of rulership
which belong to them, which were prom ised by the M arxist
p ro g ram , and which were denied them by the bureaucratic
usurpers.
The "humane" socialists bracket Stalinism with capitalism
because both, they say, subjugate men to things and sacri
fice the creative capacities of m ankind to the Moloch of
"economic necessity." Let us agree that, despite their oppos
ing economic foundations, the Stalinist regimes do exhibit

m an y similarities with the states of the capitalist world.
But these points of identity do not arise from their common
exaltation of things above men. They have a different
origin.
U nder the guise of defending the free personality against
the coercion of things, the neo-H um anists are really rebel
ling ag ain st the facts of life form ulated in the theory of
historical m aterialism . All societies have been subject to
severe economic constraint and m ust rem ain so up to the
advent of future com m unism . The less productive a society
is and the poorer in the m eans of subsistence and culture,
the h arsh er these form s of constraint m ust be. The m ass
of m ankind m ust la b o r under this lash until they raise
the powers of production to the point where everyone's
needs can be taken care of in a w ork week of ten hours
o r less.
This reduction of necessary la b o r will free people from
the trad itio nal social load that has weighed them down
a n d enable them to devote m ost of their time to general
social welfare activity and personal pursuits and pastimes.
Recent developments in science, technology and industry
from nuclear energy to autom ation place such a goal
within sight. But our society is still quite a distance from
this prom ised land.
The m eans fo r such freedom cannot be provided under
capitalism. They have not yet been created in the transi
tional societies that have passed beyond capitalism. So
long as the w orkers have to toil long hours daily to
acquire the b are necessities of existence and compete with
one another for them, they cannot adm inister the general
affairs of society or properly develop their creative
capacities as free h um an beings. Such social functions as
governm ent, the m anagem ent of industry, the practice of
science an d the arts will continue to be vested in specialists.
T ak in g ad v a n tag e of their posts of com m and, these special
ists have raised themselves above the masses and come to
d om inate them.
It is out of these economic and social conditions that
the ultra-bureaucratic police regimes of the w orkers' states
have arisen. There, as under capitalism , though in different
forms, the privileged m inority prospers at the expense of
the la b o rs of the m ajority.

The evils of Stalinism do not come from recognizing
the m aterial limitations of production or acting in accord
with them. Even the healthiest workers regime would have
to take these into account. The crimes of Stalinism consist
in placing the interests and dem ands of favored function
aries before the welfare of the people and above the needs
of development tow ards socialism; in fostering inequalities
instead of consciously and consistently dim inishing them;
in concealing both the privileges of aristocrats and the
deprivations of plebeians; in stripping the w orkers of
their dem ocratic rights and trying to pass off these
abom inations as "socialism."
The task of eradicating the scourge of bureaucratism
in the post-capitalist states is inseparable from the task
of abolishing bourgeois rule in capitalist countries. The
role of the K remlin hierarchy has been no less pernicious
in foreign affairs than at home. If the menace of im perial
ist intervention has helped the bureaucracy to m aintain
its power, its international policies in turn have been a
prime political factor in saving capitalist rule from being
overthrow n by the workers.
By im posing policies of class collaboration upon the
Comm unist parties, Stalin rescued tottering capitalist
regimes in Western Europe at the end of the Second World
War. At the sam e congress where he m ade his secret report
on Stalin's crimes (om itting this one, am ong others!)
K hrushchev m ade a declaration of policy on "new roads
to socialism" which was essentially Stalin's old course
rendered m ore explicit. He stated that Lenin's analysis
of the im perialist stage of capitalism and the revolutionary
struggle of the w orkers against it was outm oded by new
w orld-historical conditions. According to Khruschev, not
only are there no conflicts within Soviet society but even
the contradictions between m onopolist reaction and the
workers which provoked revolutionary actions in the past
have become softened. The existing capitalist regimes m ay
now, under certain conditions, be m agically transform ed
into People's Democracies by reformist methods and
through purely parliam entary channels.
The Stalinist bureaucracy and the parties it controls do
not propose to follow the path of leading the revolutionary
activities of the masses to the conquest of power. They
90
rather seek a general agreem ent with Western capitalists

to freeze the present m ap of the w orld and its relationship
of class forces.
This reciprocal reliance of capitalist rulership upon Stal
inist opportunism , and Stalinist opportunism upon "peace
loving" capitalists, w hereby one sustains the other at the
expense of the w orld w orking class, can be broken up only
by an international m ovement of the masses which is both
consistently anti-im perialist and anti-Stalinist.
The question of alienation ultimately merges with the
long-standing problem of the relation between hum an
freedom and social necessity. Socialism prom ised free
dom, cry the new H um anists, but see w hat terrible des
potism it h as begotten under Stalinism. "Are men doomed
to become the slaves of the times in which they live, even
when, after irrepressible and tireless effort, they have
climbed so high as to become the m asters of the time?'
asks the im prisoned ex-Com m unist leader and newly con
verted Social Democrat M ilovan Djilas in the autobiog
rap h y of his youth, L a n d Without Justice.
How does historical m aterialism answ er this question?
The extent of m a n 's freedom in the p ast w as rigidly cir
cum scribed by the degree of effective control society exer
cised over the m aterial conditions of life. The savage
who h ad to spend m ost of his w aking hours every day
of the year chasing after food h ad little freedom to do
any th in g else. This sam e restriction upon the scope of
h u m an action and cultural development has persisted
th ro u g h civilization for the bulk of m ankind and for
the sam e economic reasons.
If people suffer today from the tyranny of money or
from the ty ra n n y of the state, it is because their productive
systems, regardless of its property forms, cannot at their
present state of development take care of all their physical
an d cultural needs. In order to throw off these forms
of social coercion, it is necessary to raise the powers
of social p ro d u ctio n and, in order to raise these powers,
it is necessary to get rid of the reactionary social forces
which hold them back.
Scientific socialists can agree with the new H um anists
that it is necessary to live up to the highest m oral stan-
91
dards. They recognize that the desires for justice, tolerance,

equality and self-respect have become as much a part
of civilized life as the needs for food, clothing and shelter.
Marxism would not be fit to serve as the philosophical
guide of the most enlightened people of our time if it
failed to take these dem ands into account.
But that is only one side of the problem. Until their
basic m aterial requirements are actually assured for every
one, the higher activities are stunted and social relations
must rem ain un-humanized. The forces of reaction, whose
codes and conduct are governed by the will to defend
their power, property and privileges at any price, deter
mine the m oral climate far more than their opponents
who have m ore elevated aims and ideals.
It would be more "humane" for the Western im perialists
to withdraw quietly from their colonial dom ains, instead
of fighting to hold them. But the actions of the French
in A lgeria again prove that ruthless terror, not peaceful
reason, is m ore likely to prevail.
From the economic, cultural and ethical standpoints,
it would be preferable if the monied m agnates would
recognize that their usefulness is finished and consent to
yield their possessions and power to the socialist w orkers
movement by m utual agreem ent between the contending
classes. So far history has not provided any such sensible
and straight-forw ard solution to the transition from
capitalism to socialism.
The principal task before the Soviet people is to get rid
of the archaic m onstrosity of their totalitarian political
structure. It would be best if the Stalinist leaders would
give up their functions as an oppressive ruling caste,
g rant independence to their satellites, and return com
plete power to their own people. But the cases of H ungary
and C zechoslovakia indicate that they are unlikely to cede
their com m anding positions gracefully, gradually or
easily.
"Humane" and "reasonable" solutions to the fundam ental
social problem s of our time are blocked by these bulw arks
of reaction. That is why the anti-capitalist revolutions in
the advanced countries, the anti-im perialist movements in
the colonies, and the anti-bureaucratic struggles in the
92
Soviet zone will have to be brought to successful con

clusions before the causes of the antagonism s which plague
m ankind can be eliminated.
Over a century ago M arx em phasized that people cannot
behave according to truly h um an standards until they
live under truly hum an conditions. Only when the m aterial
conditions of their existence are radically transform ed,
when all their time becomes available for freely chosen
pursuits, can they throw off the contradictory relations
which have torm ented m ankind with separatism and con
flict.
The aim of socialism is to introduce the rule of reason
into all h um an activities. The alienations from which
people suffer have been produced and perpetuated by
the unconscious operation of uncontrollable n atu ral and
social forces. Socialism will eradicate the sources of alien
ation by bringing under conscious control all those hitherto
u n m an ag eable forces which have crippled m ankind, frus
trated its deepest aspirations, and thw arted its full and
free developm ent in any desired direction.
This process will start by elim inating the irrationality,
an a rc h y and inadequacy of the economic foundations
th ro u g h p lanned production of the necessities of life and
the m eans of cultural development. In this age of nuclear
energy, electronics and autom ation the linking up of the
w orkers' republics in the industrialized countries with those
in less developed lands, can, within a m easurable period,
b rin g the productive pow ers of society to the point where
there can be abundance for all, for the economically re
tard ed as well as for the m ost advanced peoples.
As this economic goal is approached, the conditions
will be p repared for the reduction of all governm ental
com pulsions over the associations and actions of people,
culm inating in the abolition of m a n 's power over man.
The universal elevation of living and educational stan
d ard s will b reak down the opposition between w orkers and
intellectuals so that all intelligence can be put to work
an d all w ork be perform ed with the utm ost intelligence.
In this new form of social production la b o r can become
a jo y o u s and significant enterprise instead of an ordeal.
The progress of science will be planned to create the
93
most worthy conditions for the all-sided im provement of

hum anity. The supreme aim of socialism is humanistic
in the highest and deepest sense. It is nothing less than
the rem aking of the hum an race in a thoroughly conscious
and scientifically planned m anner.
The scientists of socialism will not only penetrate into
galactic space. They will invade the remotest hiding places
of m atter, and especially living matter. They will system at
ically seek out and subdue the obscure forces at work in
their own bodies and psyches, the legacy of blind anim al
evolution.
With knowledge and power thus acquired, hum anity will
become the freely creative species it has the potential of
becoming. Men will re-create their n atu ral environment,
their organism s and their m utual relations as they wish
them to be. To hum an beings of that happier time the
welfare of their fellows will be the first law of their own
existence.
All economy is econom y of la b o r time and freedom
comes down in the last analysis to freedom from com pul
sory labor. The expenditure of time and energy in procur
ing the m aterial m eans of existence is an inheritance from
the anim al state which prevents people from leading a
completely hum an life. H um anity will suffer from this
alienation so long as it m ust engage in socially necessary
labor.
The Bible says: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou
eat bread." This has been the lot of hum anity throughout
the ages. The members of prim itive communities are the
slaves of la b o r time as well as the members of class
society. Savages, however, w ork only for themselves and
not to enrich others.
The lab o ring force in class society has to produce extra
wealth for the owners of the m eans of production in addi
tion to their own upkeep. They are doubly enslaved by
surplus la b o r time piled upon necessary la b o r time. The
wage w orkers who are obliged to create an ever-expanding
surplus of value for the m asters of capital are m ore inten
sively sweated than any other class.
It is not the socialist but the capitalist who looks upon
la b o r as the essence of hum anity and its eternal fate.
94
U nder capitalism the wage w orker is treated, not as a

fellow h u m an being, but as a m echanism useful for the
production of surplus value. He is a prisoner with a life
time sentence to h a rd labor.
M arxism assigns the highest im portance to la b o r activity,
recognizing that production of wealth beyond the mere
m eans of subsistence h as been the m aterial basis for all
advancem ent in civilization. But M arxism does not m ake
an idol of labor. F or all its mighty accomplishments, to
w ork for a living is not the height of hum an evolution
o r the ultim ate career of hum anity. Quite the contrary.
C om pulsory la b o r is the m a rk of social poverty and
oppression. Free time fo r all is the characteristic o f a
truly h u m a n existence.
The necessity for la b o r rem ains, and m ay even for
a time become m ore im perious, after capitalist relations
are abolished. A lthough people no longer w ork for ex
ploiting classes but for a collective economy, they do not
yet produce enough to escape the tyranny of labor time.
Under such conditions la b o r time rem ains the m easure
of wealth an d the regulator of its distribution.
But, co n trary to the situation under capitalism , the great
er their pow ers of production grow , the closer the workers
come to the ho u r of their release from servitude to labor.
When the production of all the m aterial necessities of life
and m eans of culture will be taken over by autom atic
methods and mechanism s, requiring the m inim um of super
intendence, hum anity will be freed to develop its distinc
tively hu m an capacities and relations to the full.
The prehistory of hum anity will end and its development
on a truly h u m a n basis begin, when wealth of all
kinds flows as freely as water and is as ab undant as air
and com pulsory la b o r is supplanted by free time. Then
free time enjoyed by all will be the m easure of wealth, the
g u aran tee of equality and harm ony, the source of un
restricted progress and the annihilator of alienation. This
is the goal of socialism, the prom ise of communism.

The Marxist Theory of Alienation - George Novack, Ernest Mandel (1973)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Marxist Theory of Alienation - George Novack, Ernest Mandel (1973)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Contents

The problem of alienation as a condition of m odern m an

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

sitive artists of our day. This is certified by the multi

psychological phenom enon. This is a superficial approach.

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

defiance of both these positions, m alignant manifestations

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

cause of the complex tasks and extensive adm inistra

freely elected councils. Such a salutary change from

The Causes o f A lie n a tio n

It was by studying Hegel that M arx first came across

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

private property. Therefore the forfeiture of individual

The Causes o f Alienation

taken over by nearly all the classical philosophical trends

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

from the product of our labor. A nything which we project

The Causes o f Alienation

and ineradicable curse of m ankind. He says that the

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

1844 were published for the first time in 1932, a big

The Causes o f Alienation

drisse der K ritik der Politischen O konom ie (Fundam ental

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

let's start from economic alienation. We will approach

The Causes o f Alienation

could produce their own m eans of subsistence and keep

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

not his own. The products of his la b o r become the pro p

The Causes o f Alienation

untapped potentialities for hum an development which

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

alienation of the consumer. Thus far we have spoken

The Causes o f Alienation

purposely and deliberately, perm anent and meretricious

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

enon. While they are under heavy pressure to serve the

The Causes o f Alienation

has been through playing with dolls. When children play

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

The Causes o f Alienation

in shops or on the street. When they play these dialogues

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

Thus the M arxist theory of alienation implies and con

Progressive D isalienatio n through

T h e ideological and m y stific atin g d isto rtio n o f the M arxist

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

A n analysis o f th e .Marxist th e o ry of alienation is thus incom

Progressive Disalienation or Inevitable Alienation?

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

b y th e b u re a u c ra tic o rg a n iz atio n o f th e e c o n o m y ) o ften alienates

Progressive Disalienation or Inevitable Alienation?

w ith c o m m o d ity p ro d u c tio n , m oney econom y, and the social

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

o f capitalism ; it is linked w ith a historical phase in th e developm ent

in detail a num ber of factors which h old back the process of

Progressive Disalienation or Inevitable Alienation?

c o u n try 12 are thus m ore M arxist in relation to this problem than

M arxist Theory o f Alienation

o f alienation and w h ich ca n n o t b u t c o n tin u e to exist in the period

Progressive Disalienation or Inevitable Alienation?

evolution w h ich th ey do n o t co n tro l (th e survival o f the laws of

M arxist Theory o f Alienation