What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in the History and Theory of Politics
Yabancılaşma: Marx'ın Kapitalist Toplumdaki İnsan Anlayışı
Yetkin Marksist felsefeci Bertell Ollman, Diyalektiğin Dansı ve Marksizme Sıra Dışı Bir Giriş ve Diyalektik Soruşturmalar’dan sonra, Yabancılaşma adlı klasik çalışmasıyla Türkiyeli okurlarla bir kez daha buluşuyor. Yabancılaşma, Marx’ın yabancılaşma kuramı üzerine yazılmış en sistemli ve özgün çalışmalardan biridir. Ollman bu kuramı, kuramı oluşturan unsurları tek tek inceleyerek yeniden inşa eder. Bu inşa sırasında insanın; ürünü, üretici etkinliği, hemcinsleri ve türüyle arasında Marx’ın kurduğu ilişkiler yeniden yorumlanır. Bu nedenle kitap sadece kapitalist toplumda yaşayan insanlara dair farklı bir bakış açısı sunmakla kalmaz; aynı zamanda Marx’ın insan anlayışı ve bu anlayışın temel bileşenlerinin detaylı bir analizini de içerir. Dahası Ollman, Marx’ı okurken karşımıza çıkan en büyük zorluklardan biri olan dil meselesiyle de ilgilenir. Bu kapsamlı incelemeyle, hem kapitalist toplumun hem de Marksizmin öteki bileşenlerinin başka bir gözle değerlendirilebileceği yeni bir konumlanma noktasına ulaşılır.
Ollman, Marx’ın diyalektik yönteminin mantıksal temellerini oluşturan İçsel İlişkiler felsefesine özel bir önem atfeder. Kitabın bir bölümünü bu felsefenin ana hatlarını açıklamaya ayırır. Ardından, siyasi yabancılaşmayı Marx’ın devlet kuramı çerçevesinde ele alarak, İçsel İlişkiler felsefesinin Marx’ın birbiriyle çeliştiği söylenen düşüncelerin birleştirilmesinde nasıl kullanılabileceğini gösterir. Bu felsefeye yöneltilen eleştirileri de kitabın sonunda yanıtlar. Bu nedenle Yabancılaşma, kapitalist toplumda insanın yabancılaşmasının ötesine geçer; İçsel İlişkiler felsefesinin güçlü bir savunusuna dönüşür.
Ollman, Marx’ın diyalektik yönteminin mantıksal temellerini oluşturan İçsel İlişkiler felsefesine özel bir önem atfeder. Kitabın bir bölümünü bu felsefenin ana hatlarını açıklamaya ayırır. Ardından, siyasi yabancılaşmayı Marx’ın devlet kuramı çerçevesinde ele alarak, İçsel İlişkiler felsefesinin Marx’ın birbiriyle çeliştiği söylenen düşüncelerin birleştirilmesinde nasıl kullanılabileceğini gösterir. Bu felsefeye yöneltilen eleştirileri de kitabın sonunda yanıtlar. Bu nedenle Yabancılaşma, kapitalist toplumda insanın yabancılaşmasının ötesine geçer; İçsel İlişkiler felsefesinin güçlü bir savunusuna dönüşür.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
23 people are currently reading
770 people want to read
About the author
Bertell Ollman
24 books40 followersBertell Ollman is a professor of politics at New York University. He teaches both dialectical methodology and socialist theory. He is the author of several academic works relating to Marxist theory.
Ollman is also the creator of Class Struggle, a board game based around his Marxist beliefs, and from 1978-1983 was president of Class Struggle, Inc., the company that initially produced and marketed the game. The game was later released by a major board game company, Avalon Hill. It received publicity due to its unusual and controversial theme.
Ollman is also the creator of Class Struggle, a board game based around his Marxist beliefs, and from 1978-1983 was president of Class Struggle, Inc., the company that initially produced and marketed the game. The game was later released by a major board game company, Avalon Hill. It received publicity due to its unusual and controversial theme.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
July 16, 2016
Without a doubt, this is one of the best books about Marx's social theory I've read, on so many levels. Proceeding from a concern with helping readers understand Marx's unusual use of language, something which has bedeviled readers through the years, Ollman provides a detailed examination of Marx's philosophy of internal relations, the much neglected logical foundation of his dialectical method. In the process, he demonstrates how both Marx's critics and his followers (especially the so-called "orthodox" Marxists) have misconstrued Marx's dialectical method and how much it owed to Hegel. The main difference in their use of the dialectic was Marx's content or subject of analysis, which flowed from the materialist assumption that ideas "are produced by the surrounded world", rather than proceeding in the opposite direction as Hegel did with his concepts of "Absolute Idea" and "World Spirit". This is what is meant by the saying that Marx placed Hegel, who was "standing on his head", right side up. But his conception of the dialectic proceeded from the same basic dialectical laws: "transformation of quantity into quality - mutual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes - development through contradiction or negation - spiral form of development" (as elaborated by Engels in The Dialectics of Nature).
The way Marx's philosophy of internal relations informed his use of dialectic is given a nuanced explanation by Ollman:
"Each entity with which Marx came into contact was viewed as internally related to numerous others in a setting that was forever fluctuating; it was seen as something which experiences qualitative change with an alteration at some point in quantity; as something which appears quite different, even the opposite, of what it does now when looked at from another angle or for another purpose; and as something which progresses through repeated conflicts between its parts, conflicts that are taken to constitute a series of reactions against what went before." (p. 58)
This is so much more subtle and complex than the reductive view of the dialectic as the "rock ribbed triad of thesis, anti-theses and synthesis", in Ollman's words, as commonly construed by both Marx's detractors and adherents, an overly simplified construction that robs the dialectic of much of its analytical power.
But most central is Ollman's demonstration that the theory of alienation, the most misunderstood and neglected area of his theory, was actually a cornerstone of Marx's thought and it remained so with him for the rest of his life, informing all of his work. Marx on alienation is fundamental to understanding the social relations of capitalism as rooted in commodity production and the process of the commodification of social relations and life, objectifying and dehumanizing everyone, capitalists, workers and unemployed alike (although the alienation suffered by capitalist is materially less dire than that of the worker, needless to say).
This already made a great deal of sense to me, having read the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (often denigrated as the "pre-scientific socialism" Marx). As much as I enjoyed Ollman's explanation of the theory of alienation, where this book was most enlightening to me personally was regarding the philosophy of internal relations and its implications in providing a fuller understanding of Marx's dialectical method. Because of that, I plan on reading more of Bertell Ollman's works on the application of dialectics, proceeding next to his book, Dialectical Investigations.
The way Marx's philosophy of internal relations informed his use of dialectic is given a nuanced explanation by Ollman:
"Each entity with which Marx came into contact was viewed as internally related to numerous others in a setting that was forever fluctuating; it was seen as something which experiences qualitative change with an alteration at some point in quantity; as something which appears quite different, even the opposite, of what it does now when looked at from another angle or for another purpose; and as something which progresses through repeated conflicts between its parts, conflicts that are taken to constitute a series of reactions against what went before." (p. 58)
This is so much more subtle and complex than the reductive view of the dialectic as the "rock ribbed triad of thesis, anti-theses and synthesis", in Ollman's words, as commonly construed by both Marx's detractors and adherents, an overly simplified construction that robs the dialectic of much of its analytical power.
But most central is Ollman's demonstration that the theory of alienation, the most misunderstood and neglected area of his theory, was actually a cornerstone of Marx's thought and it remained so with him for the rest of his life, informing all of his work. Marx on alienation is fundamental to understanding the social relations of capitalism as rooted in commodity production and the process of the commodification of social relations and life, objectifying and dehumanizing everyone, capitalists, workers and unemployed alike (although the alienation suffered by capitalist is materially less dire than that of the worker, needless to say).
This already made a great deal of sense to me, having read the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (often denigrated as the "pre-scientific socialism" Marx). As much as I enjoyed Ollman's explanation of the theory of alienation, where this book was most enlightening to me personally was regarding the philosophy of internal relations and its implications in providing a fuller understanding of Marx's dialectical method. Because of that, I plan on reading more of Bertell Ollman's works on the application of dialectics, proceeding next to his book, Dialectical Investigations.
September 18, 2022
This might be the best in depth explaination of the concept of 'alienation' from Marx.
The explaination of other marxist concepts is sometimes vague or plain erroneous, but the central topic of the book is treated with a lot of seriousness (so much that the book tends to be repetitive and tedious in some parts). This could've been a hundred pages less (or even 150) and the message would've been the same.
That said, if you already know about the 4 distinct types of alienation Marx develops in all his work (alienation of the process of labor, of the products of labor, of men, both oneself and the other, and nature) then this book has little to offer to you.
The explaination of other marxist concepts is sometimes vague or plain erroneous, but the central topic of the book is treated with a lot of seriousness (so much that the book tends to be repetitive and tedious in some parts). This could've been a hundred pages less (or even 150) and the message would've been the same.
That said, if you already know about the 4 distinct types of alienation Marx develops in all his work (alienation of the process of labor, of the products of labor, of men, both oneself and the other, and nature) then this book has little to offer to you.
August 31, 2012
Our socio-economic system is not simply a matter of how goods are produced. It has very real effects on how we view ourselves, our lives, and others. This insight has implications for what we define as "freedom" and "prosperity". The theory of alienation was a cornerstone of Marx's thought and it remained with him for the whole of his life, informing all of his work. This book is an excellent introduction to the concept ; Ollman writes without the hindrance of any jargon so that one can see exactly what alienation is, how it arose, and its existential effects on all of us.
June 3, 2015
Her bir bölümü için ayrı ayır yazıp, ayrı ayrı konuşup tartışabilsek keşke. Bir yanda Kapital'i açık tutun, bir yanda bu kitabı okuyun. Ara ara Kapital'den ilgili bölümleri okuyarak da ilerleyebilirsiniz. Ders tarifi verir gibi oldum. E, lezzetli bir kitap. Ama yemedim, okudum. Tavsiyedir. Yazısının tamamını ise blog'umda.
May 23, 2023
The purpose of this book is to expound on Marx’s theory of alienation as, fundamentally, a vantage point from which to view humanity’s relations, conditions, and potentials with respect to itself and the world as they exist under capitalism. It is organized around three main Parts, themselves subdivided into many chapters covering a few central themes: 1. Marx’s philosophy overall (philosophy of internal relations, dialectic as worldview, dialectic as a way of investigating and then presenting ideas) 2. Marx’s conception of human nature as a social organism engaging in conscious and purposive activity to appropriate the world around it in service of its needs and powers and 3. The theory of alienation as an account of how capitalist production relations tear apart the intimate linkages between our activities, products, and each other so essential for our freedom. Ollman is clear, concise, and organized in his presentation making this is an accessible and, overall, excellent introduction to Marx’s theory of alienation
The argument unfolds in these three Parts as follows:
PART I is about the philosophical underpinnings of Marx’s writings generally and his theory of alienation in particular. That is, his epistemological and ontological commitments which inform his treatment of more concrete subject matters like society, history, and economics. The first step is to deal with Marx’s use of language—the terms and how he uses them. This is a stumbling block for many critics and adherents alike because, on the one hand, he uses peculiar technical terms applied to ordinary ideas such as “alienation”, “for-itself”, or “organic composition of capital” while, on the other hand, using common every-day terms like “value”, “relation”, “freedom” to express very un-ordinary ideas. Marx’s choice of labels is not the only difficulty. His habit of “making definitions out of all his descriptions” also leads often to confusion. Ollman adeptly clarifies the intended meaning of terms and how to interpret them consistently despite the varied, and seemingly contradictory, application of the same term to different contexts. What any reader must appreciate is that Marx purposefully avoids giving stale ostensive definitions to terms as if they pick out fixed referents in the world. Rather, he views concepts as a part of the reality being described, each linked to others in mutual support, and as expressing “the whole” even when only “a part” is being emphasized.
This flexible (dialectical) view of concepts is rooted in, what Ollman calls, Marx’s “Philosophy of Internal Relations”: the basic philosophical world-view which commits him to seeing all things—ontologically and epistemologically—not really as “things” at all but as “relations”. In short: everything is what it is in virtue of its relations to everything else so that whatever is definitive of a concept X is a whole bunch of not-X’s. For example, capital is only capital because of what wage-labor also is. Without one of them, the other couldn’t even exist.
Ollman supports this reading of Marx in several ways, one of which is to place him within a philosophical tradition running from Spinoza to Hegel in which “the true is the whole” precisely because all parts are just elements within a mutually supporting web of concepts and relations. Ollman, furthermore, discusses the link between Marx and the philosopher of internal relations Joseph Dietzgen while also making the case that there is no “epistemic break” between the Young and Late Marx as identified by the French Structuralist—rather, there was an evolution of ideas as much present in 1844 Manuscripts as they were in his Theories of Surplus Value.
Part II details Marx’s conception of “human nature” in terms of the philosophy of internal relations expounded in Part I. It begins by making the fundamental distinction between the “natural” and “species” dimensions of “man in general” where the former captures humanity’s most basic characteristics which we have in virtue of being physical, living beings of the animal world while the latter express those characteristics which differentiate us from other animals. Both are founded on the categories of “powers” (our faculties/abilities/capacities) and “needs” (our wants for things usually not immediately available). The ways in which we exercise our powers to satisfy our needs and the ways in which our needs direct and adapt to our powers establish us as the kind of humans we are. There are three general ways humans actualize their powers to suit their needs: perception, orientation, and appropriation. It is the last of these Ollman focuses on as integral to Marx’s account of alienation. To appropriate is to “utilize constructively” or “build by incorporating” and it is a basic way humans mediate between themselves and the world around them (including others) but under capitalism it is reduced to a kind of one-sided gratification where our power merely ‘to have’ (in the sense of private ownership) is the main mode of expressing our powers generally. But this is a diminution of our powers to its lowest common denominator.
Closely related to these ideas is the concept of “activity” as the chief means of appropriating the world especially when that activity is “work” (conscious purposive productive activity) or “labor” (work as it exists under capitalism). This is because work (1) is the exemplary case of combining our powers of perception, orientation, and appropriation (2) establishes new possibilities by means of our powers through expanding the boundaries of our activity in nature and (3) establishes new possibilities for our powers by developing our needs and capacities. Work is the paradigm example of “species activity” defined as the willed/purposive/conscious engagement of our powers. It involves concentration, creativity, and social intercourse. Furthermore, when allowed to develop in its richest and fullest expression, it is also free. When our work is free then our species activity actually is what we understand it to be. In other words, the content becomes adequate to its concept. And in even more Hegelian terms, humanity is “in and for itself”…it takes itself to be what it really is (free agents).
Part III: With an understanding of Marx’s philosophy of internal relations and armed with the battery of concepts defining human essence, we are now in a position for Ollman to discuss the theory of alienation proper. Alienation consists in the sundering of those ties constitutive of human freedom. It is the “segmentation” or “practical breakdown” of essential interconnections. Ollman identifies four broken relations in need of remedy: (1) to our productive activity, (2) to the product of our activity, (3) to each other, and (4) to our species-being. First, activity under capitalism is alienated in the three-fold sense articulated above: it does not allow us to combine our powers in novel and rich ways, it reduces the possibilities for the constructive incorporation of nature, and it consumes without developing—or, often times, even replenishing—our powers. Second, the product of our activity is alienated because it becomes an object external to us, independent of our wills, and with a power over the producer. Thirdly, our relation to others is alienated because the logic of the market puts us in competition (not cooperation) with other workers and capitalists. Finally, we are alienated from our species-being—from those potentialities which distinguish humans from non-humans—because the character of work under capitalism deprives us of that great advantage we have over any other creature: of having the most complex ties of all in virtue of our more extensive powers and needs. Under capitalism, our powers are reduced to mere having and our needs to mere living.
The argument unfolds in these three Parts as follows:
PART I is about the philosophical underpinnings of Marx’s writings generally and his theory of alienation in particular. That is, his epistemological and ontological commitments which inform his treatment of more concrete subject matters like society, history, and economics. The first step is to deal with Marx’s use of language—the terms and how he uses them. This is a stumbling block for many critics and adherents alike because, on the one hand, he uses peculiar technical terms applied to ordinary ideas such as “alienation”, “for-itself”, or “organic composition of capital” while, on the other hand, using common every-day terms like “value”, “relation”, “freedom” to express very un-ordinary ideas. Marx’s choice of labels is not the only difficulty. His habit of “making definitions out of all his descriptions” also leads often to confusion. Ollman adeptly clarifies the intended meaning of terms and how to interpret them consistently despite the varied, and seemingly contradictory, application of the same term to different contexts. What any reader must appreciate is that Marx purposefully avoids giving stale ostensive definitions to terms as if they pick out fixed referents in the world. Rather, he views concepts as a part of the reality being described, each linked to others in mutual support, and as expressing “the whole” even when only “a part” is being emphasized.
This flexible (dialectical) view of concepts is rooted in, what Ollman calls, Marx’s “Philosophy of Internal Relations”: the basic philosophical world-view which commits him to seeing all things—ontologically and epistemologically—not really as “things” at all but as “relations”. In short: everything is what it is in virtue of its relations to everything else so that whatever is definitive of a concept X is a whole bunch of not-X’s. For example, capital is only capital because of what wage-labor also is. Without one of them, the other couldn’t even exist.
Ollman supports this reading of Marx in several ways, one of which is to place him within a philosophical tradition running from Spinoza to Hegel in which “the true is the whole” precisely because all parts are just elements within a mutually supporting web of concepts and relations. Ollman, furthermore, discusses the link between Marx and the philosopher of internal relations Joseph Dietzgen while also making the case that there is no “epistemic break” between the Young and Late Marx as identified by the French Structuralist—rather, there was an evolution of ideas as much present in 1844 Manuscripts as they were in his Theories of Surplus Value.
Part II details Marx’s conception of “human nature” in terms of the philosophy of internal relations expounded in Part I. It begins by making the fundamental distinction between the “natural” and “species” dimensions of “man in general” where the former captures humanity’s most basic characteristics which we have in virtue of being physical, living beings of the animal world while the latter express those characteristics which differentiate us from other animals. Both are founded on the categories of “powers” (our faculties/abilities/capacities) and “needs” (our wants for things usually not immediately available). The ways in which we exercise our powers to satisfy our needs and the ways in which our needs direct and adapt to our powers establish us as the kind of humans we are. There are three general ways humans actualize their powers to suit their needs: perception, orientation, and appropriation. It is the last of these Ollman focuses on as integral to Marx’s account of alienation. To appropriate is to “utilize constructively” or “build by incorporating” and it is a basic way humans mediate between themselves and the world around them (including others) but under capitalism it is reduced to a kind of one-sided gratification where our power merely ‘to have’ (in the sense of private ownership) is the main mode of expressing our powers generally. But this is a diminution of our powers to its lowest common denominator.
Closely related to these ideas is the concept of “activity” as the chief means of appropriating the world especially when that activity is “work” (conscious purposive productive activity) or “labor” (work as it exists under capitalism). This is because work (1) is the exemplary case of combining our powers of perception, orientation, and appropriation (2) establishes new possibilities by means of our powers through expanding the boundaries of our activity in nature and (3) establishes new possibilities for our powers by developing our needs and capacities. Work is the paradigm example of “species activity” defined as the willed/purposive/conscious engagement of our powers. It involves concentration, creativity, and social intercourse. Furthermore, when allowed to develop in its richest and fullest expression, it is also free. When our work is free then our species activity actually is what we understand it to be. In other words, the content becomes adequate to its concept. And in even more Hegelian terms, humanity is “in and for itself”…it takes itself to be what it really is (free agents).
Part III: With an understanding of Marx’s philosophy of internal relations and armed with the battery of concepts defining human essence, we are now in a position for Ollman to discuss the theory of alienation proper. Alienation consists in the sundering of those ties constitutive of human freedom. It is the “segmentation” or “practical breakdown” of essential interconnections. Ollman identifies four broken relations in need of remedy: (1) to our productive activity, (2) to the product of our activity, (3) to each other, and (4) to our species-being. First, activity under capitalism is alienated in the three-fold sense articulated above: it does not allow us to combine our powers in novel and rich ways, it reduces the possibilities for the constructive incorporation of nature, and it consumes without developing—or, often times, even replenishing—our powers. Second, the product of our activity is alienated because it becomes an object external to us, independent of our wills, and with a power over the producer. Thirdly, our relation to others is alienated because the logic of the market puts us in competition (not cooperation) with other workers and capitalists. Finally, we are alienated from our species-being—from those potentialities which distinguish humans from non-humans—because the character of work under capitalism deprives us of that great advantage we have over any other creature: of having the most complex ties of all in virtue of our more extensive powers and needs. Under capitalism, our powers are reduced to mere having and our needs to mere living.
July 24, 2011
Perhaps the most misunderstood and problematic aspect of Marxist theory is the approach to alienation, and as a result there is a tendency to put it to one side, or to treat alienation in a way that is little more than psychologistic gobbledegook. But for Marx, alienation is not the product of social isolation as the term is so often used in contemporary pop-psychology and social policy, but a fundamental element of work and production in capitalism. For Ollman this leads to an investigation of what he calls the problem of individuation. For me, Marx on alienation is fundamental to understanding the social relations of capitalism (and therefore our current world) because it takes us not only to this question of individuation and the privatisation of social experience and life, but also because it links so closely to both commodity production and the process of the commodification of social relations and life. This book is not the place to start this investigation, if for no other reason than it deals with difficult issues, but nearly 40 years after the first edition was published it remains an essential part of that study. A vital classic!
July 22, 2011
Came to this after attempting to read Marx's economic and philosophical manuscripts, which I frankly found confusing. This book is both incredibly lucid and very difficult, which is really just a way of saying that Ollman has an exceptional ability in bringing forward the full depth of Marx's thought. It really makes you realise just how misunderstood Marx actually is.
May 14, 2017
لدى الكاتب شغف باللسانيات و شغف لكارل ماركس، وهذا مزيج ممتاز كون فهم كتابات كارل ماركس ليس بالأمر السهل، بسبب استخدام ماركس
لمفرادات تتغير معانيها باستمرار، ولانه يعتبر المفردات هي علاقات وفي حركة مستمرة.
قام الكاتب بتفكيك هذه العلاقات وباستخدام الديالكتيك و فلسفة العلاقات الداخلية نجح إلى حد كبير في ذلك، وتصبح نظريات ماركس ممتعة لحد كبير.
في هذا الكتاب يقدم نظرية الانعزال-الفصل، وهي تتحدث عن وجود ٤ مراحل وحالات للانعزال في المجتمع الرأسمالي، وهي صلب هذا النظام و أساسية لعمله
المرحلة الأولي: هي فصل العامل/ة عن نشاطهم الانتاجي (من خلال فرض نظام محدد على العمال حول طريقة الأداء وساعات العمل، أو تطوير المنتج)
وينشأ شعور بعدم الراحة في العمل
و يصبح النشاط الانتاجي غريب عن طبيعة الإنسان البشرية
و يفقد العامل/ة المتعة في العمل
المرحلة الثانية: فصل العامل/ة عن المنتج الذي يقومون بإنتاجه، لا يمكن استهلاك هذا المنتج ، و لا يمكن معرفة من سيستخدمه أو إلى أين وجهة المنتج،
وعلى العامل/ة التخلي عنه ويصبحون هم الخاضعون لهذه السلعة.
المرحلة الثالثة: فصل العامل/ة عن زملائهم الآخرين و فصلهم عن رب العمل (الرأسمالي)، ضمن جو الضغط المستمر، والتنافسية ضمن العمل. حتى الرأسمالي يعاني من الفصل من خلال آلية عمل السوق والتنافس.
المرحلة الرابعة: فصل علاقة العامل/ة بمقدراتهم المستقبلية، يصبح الهم هو البقاء على قيد الحياة و تأمين مسكن وطعام.
كمان أن الكتاب تحدث عن نظرية القيمة عند ماركس وأشكال القيمة وتحول القيمة من شكل إلى آخر .
لمفرادات تتغير معانيها باستمرار، ولانه يعتبر المفردات هي علاقات وفي حركة مستمرة.
قام الكاتب بتفكيك هذه العلاقات وباستخدام الديالكتيك و فلسفة العلاقات الداخلية نجح إلى حد كبير في ذلك، وتصبح نظريات ماركس ممتعة لحد كبير.
في هذا الكتاب يقدم نظرية الانعزال-الفصل، وهي تتحدث عن وجود ٤ مراحل وحالات للانعزال في المجتمع الرأسمالي، وهي صلب هذا النظام و أساسية لعمله
المرحلة الأولي: هي فصل العامل/ة عن نشاطهم الانتاجي (من خلال فرض نظام محدد على العمال حول طريقة الأداء وساعات العمل، أو تطوير المنتج)
وينشأ شعور بعدم الراحة في العمل
و يصبح النشاط الانتاجي غريب عن طبيعة الإنسان البشرية
و يفقد العامل/ة المتعة في العمل
المرحلة الثانية: فصل العامل/ة عن المنتج الذي يقومون بإنتاجه، لا يمكن استهلاك هذا المنتج ، و لا يمكن معرفة من سيستخدمه أو إلى أين وجهة المنتج،
وعلى العامل/ة التخلي عنه ويصبحون هم الخاضعون لهذه السلعة.
المرحلة الثالثة: فصل العامل/ة عن زملائهم الآخرين و فصلهم عن رب العمل (الرأسمالي)، ضمن جو الضغط المستمر، والتنافسية ضمن العمل. حتى الرأسمالي يعاني من الفصل من خلال آلية عمل السوق والتنافس.
المرحلة الرابعة: فصل علاقة العامل/ة بمقدراتهم المستقبلية، يصبح الهم هو البقاء على قيد الحياة و تأمين مسكن وطعام.
كمان أن الكتاب تحدث عن نظرية القيمة عند ماركس وأشكال القيمة وتحول القيمة من شكل إلى آخر .
May 18, 2024
Really well laid out explanation of Marx’s concept of alienation and how it pertains to the seemingly separate but, in all actuality, interconnected aspects of the lives of both the working and ruling class.
It finished really strong with part 3, particularly with chapter 27 (The Metamorphosis of Value), chapter 28 (The Fetishism of Commodities) and chapter 30 (State as a Value Relation)
Chapter 31 (Religion as a Value Relation) makes some pretty bold theological claims that I find to be reductive but, other than that, this is still a great book that’s helped me understand Marxist thought even more.
It finished really strong with part 3, particularly with chapter 27 (The Metamorphosis of Value), chapter 28 (The Fetishism of Commodities) and chapter 30 (State as a Value Relation)
Chapter 31 (Religion as a Value Relation) makes some pretty bold theological claims that I find to be reductive but, other than that, this is still a great book that’s helped me understand Marxist thought even more.
June 11, 2018
This is what I needed to get to know about Marx’s theory of Alienation.
A very good reference.
This is what I needed to get to know about Marx’s theory of Alienation.
A very good reference.
August 2, 2020
Three stars because I really liked it when I first read it, decades ago, but didn't much like it this time.
Possibly because I internalised what I thought were its best points so it didn't see novel this time.
This time, the ideas about dialectics seemed more obvious and it spent too much time on “what Marx really meant” as opposed to “what is useful today, from Marx's writings”.
Possibly because I internalised what I thought were its best points so it didn't see novel this time.
This time, the ideas about dialectics seemed more obvious and it spent too much time on “what Marx really meant” as opposed to “what is useful today, from Marx's writings”.
January 2, 2025
I remain a little skeptical regarding some of the points made by Ollman, but in the end he provides what I was looking for, namely a comprehensive study of Marx's theory of alienation. Recommended to anyone interested in it.
September 30, 2021
This is a fascinating book which, while founded on an exposition of Marx's theory of alienation understood primarily from the 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, places the concept of alienation at the very heart of a wider analysis of Marx's thought.
Ollman starts by setting out his view that Marx's work is underpinned by a "philosophy of internal relations". This is something I've written about before, and which Ollman also covers in detail in "Dance of the Dialectic" his book on Marx's method. It suggests that Marx's analyses economy and society not as a set of discrete interacting components (separated into a 'base' and a 'superstructure') but instead as a set of social relations joined internally. In simple terms this means that for example wage labour and capital are not separated aspects of "capitalism" that can be analysed individually and then linked together. Rather they are the same thing seen from different angles, linked internally rather than externally. Marx sees the "whole" and then uses these separate facets as abstractions to help contain the complexity of the analysis.
This then provides the underpinning theory for how Ollman sets out Marx's thinking on alienation He describes four different ways in which alienation is manifested.
First productive activity is at the core of what it means to be human. It defines our interaction with nature and how we understand the world. And yet under capitalism work takes place under conditions where workers don't own the means of production, what's required for work to take place, and instead must sell their labour power as the only commodity available to them. The worker is therefore separated from the very act of production because his labour belongs to someone else.
This means that, second, we are therefore alienated from the products or our own labour. What is produced is owned by someone else and doesn't belong to the producer.
These factors, the alienation of workers from both their work and their product based on someone else's ownership, creates a separation between people who ought to be part of the same community. In other words people are alienated from each other.
Lastly this means that humans are separated from their "species being", a Hegelian phrase from Marx's early writing which I think suggests that people are fundamentally separated from some basic aspect of what it means to be human. That production, interacting with the world in order to produce what's needed to maintain life, is so basic to being human that being separated from the act of production, the product, and the others we collaborate with during production separates us from our very humanity.
To Ollman these four aspects of alienation are the key to how Marx understands value. For Marx value under capitalism represents a social relation. Marx knows that he is dealing with a complex social reality, and his analysis picks up each aspect in turn from labour to capital to the commodity, using each as a lens through which to see the complexity of value as a social relation. Underneath it all however this value relation is conditioned by alienation.
In Marx's labour theory of value the exchange value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour required to create it. This means there must be a division of labour, individual producers create articles for exchange because they cannot produce everything they each need themselves. And this division of labour implies relations of private property, and the separation of workers from ownership of the means of production. In other words it requires that the workers are separated from the products they create, which are owned by someone else to whom they've sold their labour power; and that they're separated from the act of production which is performed to create products for exchange to create the value they need to pay for their own survival. In short the whole structure of the value relation under capitalism implies or requires alienated labour, and an alienated production process.
For Ollman then alienation is fundamental to value understood as a social relation, and the nature of this value relationship then colours all other aspects of society under capitalism, touching other relations including the structure of classes and of the state.
Throughout this book, Ollman is therefore arguing for a fundamental continuity in Marx's thought from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of the 1840s through to Capital and the mature economic works. This marks a strong contrast with the interpretation of thinkers such as Althusser who theorised a clear separation between the earlier Marx's idealism and his later development of the science of dialectical materialism. This theorised "epistemological break" leads Althusser and others to dismiss theories such as alienation as immature ideological hangovers from when Marx was under the influence of the Young Hegelians or Feuerbach (and certainly his use of language such as "species-being" in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts support that).
David Harvey tackles the theory of alienation in one of his "Anti-Capitalist Chronicles" and it strikes me that Harvey has the correct resolution to this question. He argues that there is continuity in Marx's thought, but that between the early and later work Marx undertakes a period of intense study of contemporary political economy and while alienation remains part of his thought throughout, it is backed in the later works by a much deeper understanding of how it manifests through the structure of both economy and society.
Ollman's book is fascinating, and I find the philosophy of internal relations wholly convincing as a description of how Marx's thinking functions. It's also clear that alienation remains a fundamental part of his thought, while the word doesn't appear often in Capital it does in the Grundrisse which formed Marx's notebooks for the published work. Harvey's description of both continuity and discontinuity, suggesting development in Marx's thought rather than a break, seems right. For all that, Ollman's book is persuasive and worth reading, particularly for the section on how Marx's concept of relations works.
You can also find this review on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Along with some notes on Bertell Ollman's book on Marx's method "Dance of the Dialectic" here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Ollman starts by setting out his view that Marx's work is underpinned by a "philosophy of internal relations". This is something I've written about before, and which Ollman also covers in detail in "Dance of the Dialectic" his book on Marx's method. It suggests that Marx's analyses economy and society not as a set of discrete interacting components (separated into a 'base' and a 'superstructure') but instead as a set of social relations joined internally. In simple terms this means that for example wage labour and capital are not separated aspects of "capitalism" that can be analysed individually and then linked together. Rather they are the same thing seen from different angles, linked internally rather than externally. Marx sees the "whole" and then uses these separate facets as abstractions to help contain the complexity of the analysis.
This then provides the underpinning theory for how Ollman sets out Marx's thinking on alienation He describes four different ways in which alienation is manifested.
First productive activity is at the core of what it means to be human. It defines our interaction with nature and how we understand the world. And yet under capitalism work takes place under conditions where workers don't own the means of production, what's required for work to take place, and instead must sell their labour power as the only commodity available to them. The worker is therefore separated from the very act of production because his labour belongs to someone else.
This means that, second, we are therefore alienated from the products or our own labour. What is produced is owned by someone else and doesn't belong to the producer.
These factors, the alienation of workers from both their work and their product based on someone else's ownership, creates a separation between people who ought to be part of the same community. In other words people are alienated from each other.
Lastly this means that humans are separated from their "species being", a Hegelian phrase from Marx's early writing which I think suggests that people are fundamentally separated from some basic aspect of what it means to be human. That production, interacting with the world in order to produce what's needed to maintain life, is so basic to being human that being separated from the act of production, the product, and the others we collaborate with during production separates us from our very humanity.
To Ollman these four aspects of alienation are the key to how Marx understands value. For Marx value under capitalism represents a social relation. Marx knows that he is dealing with a complex social reality, and his analysis picks up each aspect in turn from labour to capital to the commodity, using each as a lens through which to see the complexity of value as a social relation. Underneath it all however this value relation is conditioned by alienation.
In Marx's labour theory of value the exchange value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour required to create it. This means there must be a division of labour, individual producers create articles for exchange because they cannot produce everything they each need themselves. And this division of labour implies relations of private property, and the separation of workers from ownership of the means of production. In other words it requires that the workers are separated from the products they create, which are owned by someone else to whom they've sold their labour power; and that they're separated from the act of production which is performed to create products for exchange to create the value they need to pay for their own survival. In short the whole structure of the value relation under capitalism implies or requires alienated labour, and an alienated production process.
For Ollman then alienation is fundamental to value understood as a social relation, and the nature of this value relationship then colours all other aspects of society under capitalism, touching other relations including the structure of classes and of the state.
Throughout this book, Ollman is therefore arguing for a fundamental continuity in Marx's thought from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of the 1840s through to Capital and the mature economic works. This marks a strong contrast with the interpretation of thinkers such as Althusser who theorised a clear separation between the earlier Marx's idealism and his later development of the science of dialectical materialism. This theorised "epistemological break" leads Althusser and others to dismiss theories such as alienation as immature ideological hangovers from when Marx was under the influence of the Young Hegelians or Feuerbach (and certainly his use of language such as "species-being" in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts support that).
David Harvey tackles the theory of alienation in one of his "Anti-Capitalist Chronicles" and it strikes me that Harvey has the correct resolution to this question. He argues that there is continuity in Marx's thought, but that between the early and later work Marx undertakes a period of intense study of contemporary political economy and while alienation remains part of his thought throughout, it is backed in the later works by a much deeper understanding of how it manifests through the structure of both economy and society.
Ollman's book is fascinating, and I find the philosophy of internal relations wholly convincing as a description of how Marx's thinking functions. It's also clear that alienation remains a fundamental part of his thought, while the word doesn't appear often in Capital it does in the Grundrisse which formed Marx's notebooks for the published work. Harvey's description of both continuity and discontinuity, suggesting development in Marx's thought rather than a break, seems right. For all that, Ollman's book is persuasive and worth reading, particularly for the section on how Marx's concept of relations works.
You can also find this review on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
Along with some notes on Bertell Ollman's book on Marx's method "Dance of the Dialectic" here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
November 24, 2020
A really excellent piece of scholarship, probably more notable/worthy of reading for its opening metacritical essays than the actual study he makes of alienation as a concept.
The first part takes as a jumping-off point the paradoxical and apparently uncareful way that Marx uses language – the same terms seem to reappear meaning different things, some factors in his analysis seem to be on both sides of the foundationalist separation between base and superstructure (private property seeming to appear twice, both as an aspect of the basal relations of production and as an aspect of the superstructure of law), and strange identity statements like ‘the division of labour is identical with private property’. All of these apparent inconsistencies have taken a drubbing from bourgeois economists. Ollman first unmasks the ‘foundationalist’ reading of Marx (the vulgar ‘base-superstructure’ image) as a caricature of what’s really going on in his work, influenced by a kind of billiard-ball causality typical to vulgar economics that it was part of Marx’s project to overthrow. Ollman is a student of the dialectic, and emphasizes the manner in which Marx was continuous with Hegel in his treatment of concepts: he was a ‘philosopher of internal relations���, meaning that his concepts of inquiry were interdependent in their very nature. For a simple example, if wage-labour were to disappear, then capital would also disappear as a fundamentally related category, because capital is money that is capable of increasing itself by employing labour-power in the form of wage-labour. This has the curious consequence that, in Marx, it is not just statements containing concepts that have truth or falsity, but the concepts themselves, insofar as they are designated and conceived in a way that maintains or severs their necessary connections with other concepts. 'Capital' conceived a concept separate from that of 'wage-labour' would therefore be an infelicitous concept, and any inquiry made using it would only tie itself in knots. The mistake of the bourgeois economists (and soi-disant Marxist thinkers, too) who thereby misread Marx is that they assume Marx is using words to designate the same concepts that they do; for Marx, any ‘isolating’ definition is likely one-sided and therefore misleading. This is part and parcel of his critique of political economy.
One of the other essays early in the book addresses itself to the problem of Marx’s ethics. Marx never invoked a transcendental ethics in his treatment of capitalism: though he wrote in the most condemnatory terms of the physical and mental state that capitalism reduces the proletariat to, he never moralized and seemed to employ no axioms of ‘justice’ in his description of communism, making him rather unique among political philosophers (if that would even be an accurate term). Ollman speculates that Marx saw ethics, like other products of the mind, in a characteristically deflationary way, and that he would have specifically objected to the ‘fact/value’ distinction in terms of which the ‘mystery’ of the ethical content of his work is repeatedly posed. According to the fact/value distinction, the world is composed of inert facts, to which a human subject reacts with value judgments. In Marx’s view, however, man and nature are in union, relationally contained in one another – there is no such position from which one would ‘stand back’ and make ‘judgments’. A human being has certain needs and powers, as we will learn with Ollman from Marx in the second part, and from this human-natural vantage Marx’s analysis of capitalism contains its own condemnation; the suppression of humans’ properly human creative powers in alienated labour, the deprivation of their needs in poverty. Horror at the conditions that capitalism generates is not born of a transcendental judgment, but an analytical 'seeing', as the kind of animal that we are. The category ‘proleteriat’ contains by necessity of its internal relations degradation and other ‘evaluative’ aspects. Ollman goes as far as to say that the domination of such a fact/value distinction is a product of alienation, being that “a chief characteristic of alienation … is the separation of what does not allow separation without distortion”. Ollman strikingly concludes that conceiving of the ‘injustice’ of capitalism as being in reference to transcendental concepts like ‘justice’ or ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is only to play into the interests of the bourgeoisie, who can merely deny these ends as illegitimate and substitute their own.
I’m not going to spend a lot of words on the succeeding segments of the book, which are concerned with first expounding Marx’s concept of human nature (well-synthesized from the somewhat disordered notes of the 1844 Manuscripts) and then Marx’s concept of alienation, defined as a perversion of human nature, along with some useful considerations on the labour theory of value, private property, and Marx’s concepts of the state and religion. I will state briefly that it’s important to recognize that Marx does not conceive of ‘human nature’ as a conservative or limiting category, as critics of the communist hypothesis do when they cite the ‘inherent competitive nature’ of humans as making such a transformation of society impossible. Human nature, for Marx, is not even something to be overcome. Human nature is part of the imperative to overcome capitalism – it is, to oversimplify, the unique need that humans have to externalize their powers of creativity in objects outside themselves and to diversify their activity, to ‘roam’, to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening [and] criticize after dinner”. Because capitalism humiliates and represses these needs in the form of alienated and divided labour, human nature represents an insurrectionary force: capitalism is, Ollman says, the low point of the realization of the great mass of humanity’s powers, and the way that it does unbearable violence to these powers anticipates the future form of communism as the culmination of humanity’s powers. Suffice it to say that this book is the best and most serious engagement with the Young Marx that I’ve yet read, and is especially useful insofar as it gives a categorical coherence and value to works that are elsewhere dismissed as youthful misfires.
It’s interesting to note that Ollman (to my memory) doesn’t so much as mention Marx’s so-called ‘epistemic break’, even as a theory he’s opposing or actively choosing to ignore – it’s rare that he even distinguishes in the text between the Marx of the 1844 Manuscripts (which, of necessity, most of the book’s reading is dealing with) and the later, ‘mature’ Marx of the critique of political economy. He quotes from both freely and without much announcement of where he’s quoting from. He gives something of a justification for this, in that he argues that the Hegelian relational philosophy that is so foregrounded in the 1844 Manuscripts continues to be employed through Marx’s later work in the form of his critique of political-economic concepts, but it seemed anyway like an odd elision in the theoretical wake of Althusser. This absent argument is not, however, a problem for Ollman’s book when considered in view of other texts. I think the essay by Norman Geras, Marx and Human Nature, published a little over a decade later, does the job of establishing a continuity of belief in ‘human nature’ between the pre- and post-Theses on Feuerbach Marx that Ollman doesn’t bother himself with here.
The first part takes as a jumping-off point the paradoxical and apparently uncareful way that Marx uses language – the same terms seem to reappear meaning different things, some factors in his analysis seem to be on both sides of the foundationalist separation between base and superstructure (private property seeming to appear twice, both as an aspect of the basal relations of production and as an aspect of the superstructure of law), and strange identity statements like ‘the division of labour is identical with private property’. All of these apparent inconsistencies have taken a drubbing from bourgeois economists. Ollman first unmasks the ‘foundationalist’ reading of Marx (the vulgar ‘base-superstructure’ image) as a caricature of what’s really going on in his work, influenced by a kind of billiard-ball causality typical to vulgar economics that it was part of Marx’s project to overthrow. Ollman is a student of the dialectic, and emphasizes the manner in which Marx was continuous with Hegel in his treatment of concepts: he was a ‘philosopher of internal relations���, meaning that his concepts of inquiry were interdependent in their very nature. For a simple example, if wage-labour were to disappear, then capital would also disappear as a fundamentally related category, because capital is money that is capable of increasing itself by employing labour-power in the form of wage-labour. This has the curious consequence that, in Marx, it is not just statements containing concepts that have truth or falsity, but the concepts themselves, insofar as they are designated and conceived in a way that maintains or severs their necessary connections with other concepts. 'Capital' conceived a concept separate from that of 'wage-labour' would therefore be an infelicitous concept, and any inquiry made using it would only tie itself in knots. The mistake of the bourgeois economists (and soi-disant Marxist thinkers, too) who thereby misread Marx is that they assume Marx is using words to designate the same concepts that they do; for Marx, any ‘isolating’ definition is likely one-sided and therefore misleading. This is part and parcel of his critique of political economy.
One of the other essays early in the book addresses itself to the problem of Marx’s ethics. Marx never invoked a transcendental ethics in his treatment of capitalism: though he wrote in the most condemnatory terms of the physical and mental state that capitalism reduces the proletariat to, he never moralized and seemed to employ no axioms of ‘justice’ in his description of communism, making him rather unique among political philosophers (if that would even be an accurate term). Ollman speculates that Marx saw ethics, like other products of the mind, in a characteristically deflationary way, and that he would have specifically objected to the ‘fact/value’ distinction in terms of which the ‘mystery’ of the ethical content of his work is repeatedly posed. According to the fact/value distinction, the world is composed of inert facts, to which a human subject reacts with value judgments. In Marx’s view, however, man and nature are in union, relationally contained in one another – there is no such position from which one would ‘stand back’ and make ‘judgments’. A human being has certain needs and powers, as we will learn with Ollman from Marx in the second part, and from this human-natural vantage Marx’s analysis of capitalism contains its own condemnation; the suppression of humans’ properly human creative powers in alienated labour, the deprivation of their needs in poverty. Horror at the conditions that capitalism generates is not born of a transcendental judgment, but an analytical 'seeing', as the kind of animal that we are. The category ‘proleteriat’ contains by necessity of its internal relations degradation and other ‘evaluative’ aspects. Ollman goes as far as to say that the domination of such a fact/value distinction is a product of alienation, being that “a chief characteristic of alienation … is the separation of what does not allow separation without distortion”. Ollman strikingly concludes that conceiving of the ‘injustice’ of capitalism as being in reference to transcendental concepts like ‘justice’ or ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is only to play into the interests of the bourgeoisie, who can merely deny these ends as illegitimate and substitute their own.
I’m not going to spend a lot of words on the succeeding segments of the book, which are concerned with first expounding Marx’s concept of human nature (well-synthesized from the somewhat disordered notes of the 1844 Manuscripts) and then Marx’s concept of alienation, defined as a perversion of human nature, along with some useful considerations on the labour theory of value, private property, and Marx’s concepts of the state and religion. I will state briefly that it’s important to recognize that Marx does not conceive of ‘human nature’ as a conservative or limiting category, as critics of the communist hypothesis do when they cite the ‘inherent competitive nature’ of humans as making such a transformation of society impossible. Human nature, for Marx, is not even something to be overcome. Human nature is part of the imperative to overcome capitalism – it is, to oversimplify, the unique need that humans have to externalize their powers of creativity in objects outside themselves and to diversify their activity, to ‘roam’, to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening [and] criticize after dinner”. Because capitalism humiliates and represses these needs in the form of alienated and divided labour, human nature represents an insurrectionary force: capitalism is, Ollman says, the low point of the realization of the great mass of humanity’s powers, and the way that it does unbearable violence to these powers anticipates the future form of communism as the culmination of humanity’s powers. Suffice it to say that this book is the best and most serious engagement with the Young Marx that I’ve yet read, and is especially useful insofar as it gives a categorical coherence and value to works that are elsewhere dismissed as youthful misfires.
It’s interesting to note that Ollman (to my memory) doesn’t so much as mention Marx’s so-called ‘epistemic break’, even as a theory he’s opposing or actively choosing to ignore – it’s rare that he even distinguishes in the text between the Marx of the 1844 Manuscripts (which, of necessity, most of the book’s reading is dealing with) and the later, ‘mature’ Marx of the critique of political economy. He quotes from both freely and without much announcement of where he’s quoting from. He gives something of a justification for this, in that he argues that the Hegelian relational philosophy that is so foregrounded in the 1844 Manuscripts continues to be employed through Marx’s later work in the form of his critique of political-economic concepts, but it seemed anyway like an odd elision in the theoretical wake of Althusser. This absent argument is not, however, a problem for Ollman’s book when considered in view of other texts. I think the essay by Norman Geras, Marx and Human Nature, published a little over a decade later, does the job of establishing a continuity of belief in ‘human nature’ between the pre- and post-Theses on Feuerbach Marx that Ollman doesn’t bother himself with here.
May 3, 2023
The Nature of Man.
The barbaric fool, voyaging only in trying to possess the things he does best, will, money, power, glory. In the mood for destruction, finding within himself some courage to fight, searching the universe for reasons to war. In his natural state of things, the man will eat, labour, fuck. These are the functions of man.
He necessitates from others, life, in an order to realize his natural powers (,the attainment of those things). Man is a sensuous creature, pirating states of suffering. To be sensuous is to suffer, by any means of embracing the term, suffering from a minute or tremendous pain, and because of his enduring either, man is said to be passionate. Passion is that quality animating his efforts to attain his goods and things. Marx treats the declaration of the sensuous man as one realizing his senses as he comes into contact with them. Even if inhabiting within himself, his senses, they are only realized through other objects, nature. Man can never be free from himself. (How can you be alienated by nature when it is the very thing which determines you?)
He becomes incredibly agile without satisfying his immediate wants, but don’t become too angsty in not having the goods you desire, sir! Your being is limited. to so much. To his imagination of things, to even the imagination of self. No man can do more with nature than its already existing state. Any conception cannot be done without the relationship between man and his nature. It is not that they determine each other, no, it is that nature decides man.
The physical self, the self after implications of external forces, is all that can be manipulated by man, governing his height, health, labour, the color of his hair, commitments, children, but even those choices may be predicted by his acquired nature. These things in which guise themselves voluntary, are not. I’m talking about the active life which buzz and crawl and grow to die, which exist on their own.
Those are the natures that bound themselves so tightly to the world. Those things that flourish not under the hand of the barbaric fool.
Man’s Social Nature. The Bondage of Man to Man.
What will man create with the first nature? What can he do? By any means of replenishing his money, power, glory, man is forced into co-operation. Marx abuses the term, co-operation, not the collaboration of either conscious or unconscious reason (unconscious reason as in: individuals in co-operation to one another without charged purpose. i.e. using some language people can understand. i.e. politeness and tameness.) Conscious effort by way of co-operation is what is implied by Marx. Only in such narrow sense where the term refers to joint activity motivated by mutually accepted ends.
Man is a social being and with his co-operative activities, there, he builds society.
Society is the sum of relations treated by man as essentials in the maintenance of his wants.
These relations give into living both externally and internally to man. Marx calls society, externally, ‘the product of man’s reciprocal activities’, as well as, internally, ‘society itself, that is man himself in his social relations’. As in, society intrinsically linked to the man. And while people are related to each other by internal and external expressions, society seems to blanket over both man and his first nature.
Because society, the collective state of co-operation, and the people dressed in it, share the same ends, the bondage of man to man, you see, is what ought to happen.
‘Their needs - therefore their nature - and the manner of satisfying them creates between them reciprocal links.’ The skills one has becomes necessary for the other. Interest, trade.
Human labour is an investment ready to renounce owning property. Material becomes the record of human activity. Marx speaks so heavily on the bondages of man to man, sharing also that the
“History of an individual in particular cannot be separated from the history of preceding or contemporary individuals.”
Man, tethered in such a way, alienation seems impossible!
After Capitalism. The Theory of Alienation.
It is not in the case, however, the realm of estrangement absent from any communal living. There are four domains in which Marx categorizes as taking effect from the diseases of alienation. In nature, labour, the other, and self. These are the elements encouraging the suffering of people, the death of creativity, the working man.
Man is a body first, possessing neither intellectual savvy nor awareness of person. What he knows is learned. He compares himself in natural degradation. The world is his competitor now. He’ll fight taxes, conspire against the birds, wane off his children if ever they disappoint him. He aims only to be better (,or look better) than any-one else. This contest Marx believes to be a product of capitalism. Where man is alienated from man.
Because the foundations of life is work, nature becomes exploited as a means of production, meant to be consumed by anyone, as satisfying the ones able to buy. Alienation from nature is the easiest because the trees never stop growing and the people can never stop taking.
This pendantic forevermore becomes cyclical. The species of man, that is, his nature of work is all he can do. He abuses his labour, or it abuses him. He is mindless in his tasks and things. Its all so boring and lame and the labour isn’t even his! Capitalism reaps the award off the passionate working man. Alienation of labour, alienation of self.
The distortion of life is what is called into Marx’s alienation. Tearing human nature into angry bodies, trampled under consumer pressures, recycling innovations, remedying any material want, producing social existence, preserving community, transpiring some inspirations, energizing free market, he is abused forever.
The barbaric fool, voyaging only in trying to possess the things he does best, will, money, power, glory. In the mood for destruction, finding within himself some courage to fight, searching the universe for reasons to war. In his natural state of things, the man will eat, labour, fuck. These are the functions of man.
He necessitates from others, life, in an order to realize his natural powers (,the attainment of those things). Man is a sensuous creature, pirating states of suffering. To be sensuous is to suffer, by any means of embracing the term, suffering from a minute or tremendous pain, and because of his enduring either, man is said to be passionate. Passion is that quality animating his efforts to attain his goods and things. Marx treats the declaration of the sensuous man as one realizing his senses as he comes into contact with them. Even if inhabiting within himself, his senses, they are only realized through other objects, nature. Man can never be free from himself. (How can you be alienated by nature when it is the very thing which determines you?)
He becomes incredibly agile without satisfying his immediate wants, but don’t become too angsty in not having the goods you desire, sir! Your being is limited. to so much. To his imagination of things, to even the imagination of self. No man can do more with nature than its already existing state. Any conception cannot be done without the relationship between man and his nature. It is not that they determine each other, no, it is that nature decides man.
The physical self, the self after implications of external forces, is all that can be manipulated by man, governing his height, health, labour, the color of his hair, commitments, children, but even those choices may be predicted by his acquired nature. These things in which guise themselves voluntary, are not. I’m talking about the active life which buzz and crawl and grow to die, which exist on their own.
Those are the natures that bound themselves so tightly to the world. Those things that flourish not under the hand of the barbaric fool.
Man’s Social Nature. The Bondage of Man to Man.
What will man create with the first nature? What can he do? By any means of replenishing his money, power, glory, man is forced into co-operation. Marx abuses the term, co-operation, not the collaboration of either conscious or unconscious reason (unconscious reason as in: individuals in co-operation to one another without charged purpose. i.e. using some language people can understand. i.e. politeness and tameness.) Conscious effort by way of co-operation is what is implied by Marx. Only in such narrow sense where the term refers to joint activity motivated by mutually accepted ends.
Man is a social being and with his co-operative activities, there, he builds society.
Society is the sum of relations treated by man as essentials in the maintenance of his wants.
These relations give into living both externally and internally to man. Marx calls society, externally, ‘the product of man’s reciprocal activities’, as well as, internally, ‘society itself, that is man himself in his social relations’. As in, society intrinsically linked to the man. And while people are related to each other by internal and external expressions, society seems to blanket over both man and his first nature.
Because society, the collective state of co-operation, and the people dressed in it, share the same ends, the bondage of man to man, you see, is what ought to happen.
‘Their needs - therefore their nature - and the manner of satisfying them creates between them reciprocal links.’ The skills one has becomes necessary for the other. Interest, trade.
Human labour is an investment ready to renounce owning property. Material becomes the record of human activity. Marx speaks so heavily on the bondages of man to man, sharing also that the
“History of an individual in particular cannot be separated from the history of preceding or contemporary individuals.”
Man, tethered in such a way, alienation seems impossible!
After Capitalism. The Theory of Alienation.
It is not in the case, however, the realm of estrangement absent from any communal living. There are four domains in which Marx categorizes as taking effect from the diseases of alienation. In nature, labour, the other, and self. These are the elements encouraging the suffering of people, the death of creativity, the working man.
Man is a body first, possessing neither intellectual savvy nor awareness of person. What he knows is learned. He compares himself in natural degradation. The world is his competitor now. He’ll fight taxes, conspire against the birds, wane off his children if ever they disappoint him. He aims only to be better (,or look better) than any-one else. This contest Marx believes to be a product of capitalism. Where man is alienated from man.
Because the foundations of life is work, nature becomes exploited as a means of production, meant to be consumed by anyone, as satisfying the ones able to buy. Alienation from nature is the easiest because the trees never stop growing and the people can never stop taking.
This pendantic forevermore becomes cyclical. The species of man, that is, his nature of work is all he can do. He abuses his labour, or it abuses him. He is mindless in his tasks and things. Its all so boring and lame and the labour isn’t even his! Capitalism reaps the award off the passionate working man. Alienation of labour, alienation of self.
The distortion of life is what is called into Marx’s alienation. Tearing human nature into angry bodies, trampled under consumer pressures, recycling innovations, remedying any material want, producing social existence, preserving community, transpiring some inspirations, energizing free market, he is abused forever.
July 31, 2025
Thinking I already 'knew' Marx, I mistakenly began reading this book 2/3 through to focus on how Ollman unpacks Marx's conceptualization of alienation. Over the course of reading, I felt I was missing something important that prevented me from grasping the thrust of the argument (Marx's philosophy of internal relations) and, seeming to anticipate my miseducation, Ollman alludes to as much in his critique of many scholars (Marxist and non-Marxist alike) who betray a misreading of the 'essence' of Marx's writing. I then started the book over from the beginning as one would normally do and the result was revelatory.
Indeed, Ollman painstakingly articulates how Marx's very use of language -- to say nothing of how translations and trends in (particularly French) social theory have ossified a particular understanding -- eschews concrete definitions and 'common sense' interpretation. This is vital for situating Marx within the historical development of his ideas and reading his concepts as adaptable to changing circumstances over time. Likewise, Ollman rejects categorizations of Marx as espousing economic determinism instead of a trajectory (p.275) and Historical Materialism instead of a materialist conception of history (p.9). The '-ism' in each forces the dynamism of Marx's epistemology into a teleology. Key to illuminating these and other points of contention over interpretation is Marx's philosophy of internal relations through which the whole intrinsically includes all its possible parts (causes and conditions) but is not distinct from them and outside the material world as with Hegel. As such, when Marx uses concepts that may appear inconsistent throughout his writings, he does so to foreground different angles of apprehending the whole. In this way -- and this is the most confusing part -- the value forms of commodity, capital, interest, profit, rent, wages, and money express the same relations but from different vantage points of alienated labor (p.270).
While I feel an expansive appreciation for Marx after taking the time to read Ollman's book closely, this is not the type of book that a reader 'gets' everything the first time. Rather, the concepts behind the concepts make more sense and thus offer targeted points of departure for subsequent inquiry.
Indeed, Ollman painstakingly articulates how Marx's very use of language -- to say nothing of how translations and trends in (particularly French) social theory have ossified a particular understanding -- eschews concrete definitions and 'common sense' interpretation. This is vital for situating Marx within the historical development of his ideas and reading his concepts as adaptable to changing circumstances over time. Likewise, Ollman rejects categorizations of Marx as espousing economic determinism instead of a trajectory (p.275) and Historical Materialism instead of a materialist conception of history (p.9). The '-ism' in each forces the dynamism of Marx's epistemology into a teleology. Key to illuminating these and other points of contention over interpretation is Marx's philosophy of internal relations through which the whole intrinsically includes all its possible parts (causes and conditions) but is not distinct from them and outside the material world as with Hegel. As such, when Marx uses concepts that may appear inconsistent throughout his writings, he does so to foreground different angles of apprehending the whole. In this way -- and this is the most confusing part -- the value forms of commodity, capital, interest, profit, rent, wages, and money express the same relations but from different vantage points of alienated labor (p.270).
While I feel an expansive appreciation for Marx after taking the time to read Ollman's book closely, this is not the type of book that a reader 'gets' everything the first time. Rather, the concepts behind the concepts make more sense and thus offer targeted points of departure for subsequent inquiry.
March 8, 2022
Because I'm now re-reading the Manuscripts of 1844, I decided to sprint through the rest of this book.
To be honest, at least a third, if not more, of this book could probably have been edited. There's a lot of throat-clearing and some of Ollman's writing style is dry.
That said, when Ollman starts his analyses of the seperate determinates that as a unified whole cover what Marx called alienation in the Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and Capital, Ollman is very perceptive; and he helped me to better grasp how these relations interact together, specifically how the modern state and religion are expressions of alienated everyday social life, beyond the sphere of production, which I tend to think of more so when I think of alienation.
It's an important work for anyone who's interested in Marxist theory; however, I'd advise approaching it with the understanding that some of it is best skimmed.
To be honest, at least a third, if not more, of this book could probably have been edited. There's a lot of throat-clearing and some of Ollman's writing style is dry.
That said, when Ollman starts his analyses of the seperate determinates that as a unified whole cover what Marx called alienation in the Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and Capital, Ollman is very perceptive; and he helped me to better grasp how these relations interact together, specifically how the modern state and religion are expressions of alienated everyday social life, beyond the sphere of production, which I tend to think of more so when I think of alienation.
It's an important work for anyone who's interested in Marxist theory; however, I'd advise approaching it with the understanding that some of it is best skimmed.
January 10, 2020
Holy moly. This was a massive read. 300 pages of pure philosophy and economics. Ollman takes care to explain every single thread of Marx's philosophy of internal relations while relating it to everything Marx and everything economics. At times this book appeared impossible to get through, posing a daunting task to me every time I picked up the heavy text. But although it took me more than a month to get through I learned invaluable information for my progressive study into Marxism. Ollman expounds upon Marx's works while analyzing them to their individual words, spending chapter by chapter describing to the reader Marx's word choice and his dialectically changing definitions. Ollman then synthesizes his work into Marx's theory of alienation, connecting it all in a satisfying conclusion to economics, politics, syntax, alienation, and philosophy.
July 27, 2024
In this amazing work, Ollman links the “early Marx” to the later “mature Marx,” showing the kernel of alienation as always present in his thinking. Further, Ollman clarifies “Alienation” not as an abstract category to be felt in 4 distinct ways but an event experienced, taking many interconnected forms. I must say this was one of the most enjoyable reads I’ve ever had. I honestly yearned for this book in a way I never have during the few weeks I was too busy to read it. This really extended my understanding of Marx’s profundity which had become quite stagnant the months before reading this. Highly recommend
May 15, 2018
This remains a fundamental book to navigate the complexity of Marx's thought and method. It is also especially valuable to unpack the enormously rich writings of the young Marx; I recommend reading it alongside the 1844 Manuscripts. Well organized and lucidly written.
October 31, 2019
Time to update Lenin’s statement - “It’s impossible to understand Capital without first having mastered Hegel’s Logic” by replacing Hegel’s Logic with Ollman’s “Alienation”
Exceptional.
Exceptional.
November 3, 2019
Especially the most interesting part is the Marx view of communist society and communist individual.
October 15, 2020
güzel bir çalışma fakat batı marksizmine bulanmış düşüncelerini kendine saklasa fena olmazdı.
Read
November 20, 2021i guess i am not the one who has a capacity of understanding marx lol
June 8, 2022
Ollmans best work and one of the best works on the Marxist-humanist theoretical orientation. If your Marxist sympathies extend to the earlier Marx writings this is a work well worth your time.
Read
March 20, 2025i don't think this is my "thing"
April 24, 2024
good. learned some new stuff. need to re-read to really digest it all, or at least most of it.
July 24, 2008
read this in college, liked what i read but didn't understand much of it.... now, reading it again this spring as prep for teaching marx, it's even better - eloquent, careful, insightful.... one of the best non-Marx things to read on Marxism.
July 12, 2016
A pretty good summary and attempt at making Marx's early philosophy coherent.
One thing Ollman focuses on well is process thinking in Marx, but he absolutizes Marx's early materialism into a typical monism, and he doesn't explain dialectics well at all.
One thing Ollman focuses on well is process thinking in Marx, but he absolutizes Marx's early materialism into a typical monism, and he doesn't explain dialectics well at all.
March 15, 2010
I read it some 30 years ago and am reading it again. Seems we all need to revisit Marx and see what capitalism has done to us.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews