Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T15:06:51.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alienation and the Young Marx in Soviet Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Murray Yanowitch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent resurgence of interest in the West in Karl Marx's thought has centered largely on his early writings, particularly the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (published for the first time in 1932 in the original German), and on the role which the theme of alienation played in Marx's thought. Much of the literature stimulated by this renewed study of Marx has been concerned with the extent of continuity (or discontinuity) between the early and later views of Marx and the relevance of his concept of alienation to modern industrial societies. The fact that the young Marx's writings have provided intellectual support for various “revisionist” groups yearning for a “humanistic socialism” in European Communist countries has also undoubtedly focused attention on these works in the West.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1967 , pp. 29 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the references in T. B. Bottomore's introduction to Karl Marx, Early Writings, trans, and ed. T. B. Bottomore (New York, 1964), pp. vii-viii. Among the more important recent works published in the United States on the young Marx and the theme of alienation are Robert Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx (Cambridge, Mass., 1964); Daniel Bell, “Two Roads from Marx,” in The End of Ideology (New York, 1961); Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man (New York, 1961). Herbert Marcuse's Reason and Revolution (New York, 1941) was probably the first work which acquainted readers in the United States with the theme of alienation in Marx's work.

2 For example, M. M. Furshchik, Filosofiia marksizma i sovremennaia sotsial-demokratiia (Moscow, 1936), pp. 310-11, 327-28. A series of articles by T. Rainov several years prior to the publication of the German edition of the Manuscripts in 1932 anticipated to a remarkable degree some of the more recent discussions of alienation (“Otchuzhdenie deistviia,” Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi akademii, Book XIII [1925]; Books XIV-XV [1926]).

3 Pozner, “Formirovanie teoreticheskikh osnov ‘Kommunisticheskogo Manifesta’ v rannikh rabotakh Marksa,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, Seriia istorii i filosofii, No. 6. 1948, p. 492.

4 Ibid., p. 493.

5 Ibid., p. 496. We rely here on Bottomore's translation of Early Writings, pp. 153, 155.

6 Pozner, p. 494.

7 Rozenberg, , Ocherki razvitiia ekonomicheskogo ucheniia Marksa i Engel'sa v sorokovye gody XIX veka, ed. Tsagolov, N. A. (Moscow, 1954), p. 240 Google Scholar. There is ample justification for Rozenberg's observation; compare Early Writings, p. 125, and Karl, Marx, Wage-Labour and Capital (New York, 1933), p. 19.Google Scholar

8 Rozenberg, p. 112.

9 Ibid., p. 97.

10 Ibid., p. 121.

11 Bak, “Tsennyi trud o razvitii ekonomicheskogo ucheniia marksizma,” Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 9, 1955, p. 170.

12 Karpushin, “Razrabotka K. Marksom materialisticheskoi dialektiki v ‘Ekonomicheskofilosofskikh rukopisiakh’ 1844 goda,” Voprosy filosofii, No. 3, 1955, pp. 104, 113-14.

13 Ibid., p. 106.

14 Ibid., p. 108. It is all the more curious that elsewhere in his article (p. 112) Karpushin seeks to reduce the significance of the dialectic of negativity in Marx's thought.

15 Ibid., p. 105.

16 See, for example, T. I. Oizerman, “Problema revoliutsii v trudakh Marksa i Engel'sa v period formirovanii marksizma,” in Uchenye zdpiski (Wioscow State University), Trudy filosofskogo fakul'teta, Vypusk 169 (Moscow, 1954), pp. 36-38.

17 Karpushin, p. 114.

18 K. Marx and F. Engels, Iz rannykh proizvedenii (Moscow, 1956), pp. vi-viii.

19 The material in this and the following paragraphs is drawn from Vasetskii, G. S. and Butenko, A. P., eds., Protiv sovremennogo revizionizma (Moscow, 1958), pp. 88, 153-55, 165, 221Google Scholar; Butenko, A. P., Osipova, E. V,, Andreeva, G. M., and Elez, I., eds., Protiv sovremennogo revizionizma v filosofii i sotsiologii (Moscow, 1960),, pp. 59, 73-75, 119-20.Google Scholar

20 Kandel, “Iz istorii bor'by Marksa i Engel'sa s nemetskim ‘istinnym sotsializmom,'“ in Iz istorii formirovaniia i razvitiia marksizma (Moscow, 1959), p. 120.

21 Ibid., p. 123.

22 Ibid., pp. 153-54. We rely here on Bottomore's translation of Early Writings, pp. 129, 154, 155.

23 Kandel, “Nekotorye voprosy istorii formirovaniia nauchnogo kommunizma v osveshchenii sovremennoi burzhuaznoi i reformistskoi literatury,” in Istoriia sotsialisticheskikh uchenii (Moscow, 1962), p. 376.

24 Ibid., p. 385.

25 Ibid., p. 386.

26 Ibid., p. 391.

27 Oizerman, Formirovanie filosofii marksizma (Moscow, 1962), pp. 18, 20.

28 Oizerman, “Fal'sifikatsiia nlosofskogo ucheniia Marksa s pozitsii irratsionalizma,“ Voprosy filosofii, No. 3, 1958, p. 44.

29 Ibid., p. 50.

30 Ibid., p. 45.

31 Oizerman in Istoriia filosofii, III (Moscow, 1959; a publication of the USSR Academy of Sciences), p. 49; my italics.

32 Oizerman, “Chelovek i ego otchuzhdenie,” in Chelovek i epokha (Moscow, 1964; a publication of the USSR Academy of Sciences), p. 112.

33 M. T. Iovchuk, T. I. Oizerman, and I. la. Shtipanov, eds., Kratkii ocherk istorii filosofii (Moscow, 1960), p. 439. The portion of this volume dealing with alienation was written by Oizerman.

34 Oizerman, “Man and His Alienation,” Soviet Studies in Philosophy, II, No. 3 (Winter 1963-64), 42.

35 Ibid., p. 41. The same point is made in Oizerman, “Ob odnoi reaktsionnoi burzhuaznoi legende,” Voprosy filosofii, No. 6, 1963, p. 107.

36 For example, Oizerman in Istoriia filosofii, III, 50.

37 Oizerman, Formirovanie, p. 20.

38 Ibid., p. 312.

39 In his most recent article on the subject Oizerman asserted that Marx retained and “continued to develop” the concept of alienation in his later writings. He noted that this applied not only to “commodity fetishism” but to “other problems” as well. The latter remained unspecified. See Oizerman, “Chelovek i ego otchuzhdenie,” p. 117.

40 Malysh, “K otsenke ‘Ekonomichesko-filosofskikh rukopisei 1844 goda’ K. Marksa,“ Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 2, 1964, pp. 73-74.

41 The criticism had appeared in the Italian journal Studi storici, No. 4, 1962, pp. 667-730.

42 E. P. Kandel and V. A. Karpushin, “Eshche raz ob istoricheskoi sud'be idei molodogo Marksa,” Voprosy filosofii, No. 1, 1964, pp. 34-35.

43 Ibid., p. 42.

44 The presentation of Zanardo's position here is based on the quotations which appear in the Kandel and Karpushin article (ibid., pp. 42-44).

45 Ibid., p. 44.

46 E. M. Sitnikov, Problema ‘otchuzhdeniia’ v burzhuaznoi filosofii i fal'sifikatory marksizma (Moscow, 1962), P. 32.

47 Ibid., P. 36.

48 Davydov, “A. Lefevr i ego ‘kontseptsiia otchuzdeniia,'” Voprosy filosofii, No. 1, 1963, PP. 92-93.

49 Ibid., p. 95.

50 M. M. Rozental’ and P. F. Iudin, eds., Filosofskii slovar’ (Moscow, 1963), pp. 333-34.

51 This remark is based on an examination of the 1940, 1951, 1954, and 1955 editions of the Soviet Filosofskii slovar'.

52 Rozental* and Iudin, p. 334.

53 Petrosian, Gumanizm (Moscow, 1964), p. 91.

54 Ibid., p.85.

55 Rabochii klass i tekhnicheskii progress (Moscow, 1965; a publication of the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences), pp. 43-44.

56 R. I. Kosolapov, Kommunizm i svoboda (Moscow, 1965), p. 36.

57 Ibid., p. 38.

58 N. Bikkenii, S. Oduev, A. Pozner, and S. Smirnov, “Filosofskaia nauka i ee sovremennye problemy,” Kommunist, No. 5, 1965, p. 63.

59 Kommunizm i kul'tura (Moscow, 1966), p. 387.

60 A. P. Ogurtsov, “Problemy otchuzdeniia v rabotakh K. Marksa,” in Moskovskii Ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni Institut Narodnogo Khoziaistva imenii G. B. Plekhanova, Trudy instituta, Vypusk 31 (Moscow, 1965), p. 201.

61 See, for example, Rabochii klass, p. 51.

62 See the treatment of Georges Friedmann's work, ibid., p. 49.

63 See Ogurtsov, p. 207.

64 P. E. Kriazhev, “Nekotorye sotsiologicheskie voprosy formirovaniia lichnosti,“ Voprosy filosofii, No. 7, 1966, p. 22.

65 N. V. Markov, Prevrashchenie truda v pervuiu zhiznennuiu potrebnost’ (Moscow, 1964), p. 12.

66 G. S. Batishchev, “Otnoshenie k trudu kak pervoi potrebnosti zhizni—vazhneishaia cherta cheloveka kommunisticheskogo obshchestva,” Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly, Filosofskie nauki, No. 1, 1963, pp. 13, 17.

67 Sitnikov, pp. 90-91.

68 Ibid., pp. 95-98.

69 Shishkin, “Chelovek kak vysshaia tsennost',” Voprosy filosofii, No. 1, 1965, pp. 10-11.

70 Ibid., p. 14.

71 Kosolapov,’ p. 60.

72 Ibid., p. 68. - ….

73 N. Bikkenii et al., p. 64.

74 A. A. Zyorykin,Filosofiia i. nauchno-tekhnicheskii progress (Moscow, 1965), p. 38.

75 See, for example, E. Kasimovskii and Iu. Kozyrev, “Sotsial'nye faktory rosta proizvoditel'nosti truda,” Planovoe khoziaistvo, No. 9, 1966, p. 22.

76 A. G. Zdravomyslov and V. A. Iadov, eds., Trud i razvitie lichnosti (Leningrad, 1965), PP. 3-4.

77 Marcuse, Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (New York, 1961), p. 222.