The Human Race

The term alienation refers to the isolation of one’s self from a belonging society. When a person is alienated they no longer feel as if they belong or have the same views as the group or society they live in. How does one become alienated from something that they once belonged to? This is a question many have discussed throughout history. In Voltaire’s book Candide, Marx’s book The Communist Manifesto, Hoffer’s The True Believer, and Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized, all these authors address man’s alienation in modern society and come up with solutions for man’s alienation within each book.

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx identifies a dichotomy that is created and bolstered by the capitalist mode of production. In this mode of production, the dichotomy presents itself in a division of labor that forms of two kinds of people: capitalists, the owners of the means of production, and laborers, those who work under the domain of the capitalist. Marx harshly criticizes this mode of production, arguing that it exploits the laborer and estranges him from himself and his fellow man. According to Marx, this large-scale estrangement is achieved through a causal chain of effects that results in multiple types of alienation, each contingent upon the other. First, Marx asserts that under capitalism, the laborer is alienated from his product of labor. Second, because of this alienation from his product, man is also alienated then from the act of production. Third, man, in being alienated both from his product and act of production, is alienated from his species essence, which Marx believes to be the ability to create and build up an objective world. Finally, after this series of alienations, Marx arrives at his grand conclusion that capitalist labor causes man to be alienated from his fellow man. In this paper, I will argue in support of Marx’s chain of alienations, arriving at the conclusion that laborers, under the capitalist mode of production, cannot retain their species essence and thus cannot connect with one another, and exist in a world

Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville includes Tocqueville’s observations on what American society and culture was like during the 1830’s. Throughout his analysis of America, he draws many outlandish and interesting conclusions regarding what life was like during this time period. For example, in Chapter 18, Tocqueville remarks that citizens in democratic societies are independent, which makes them weak and subsequently uninfluential in society. He goes on to say that in order to combat this, associations must be established to combat individualism and to circulate new thoughts and ideas. All in all, Tocqueville’s claim is certainly valid, but only up to a certain point because there were a select few of individuals that were able to make an influence on society without the help from any associations.

Tocqueville further argues that unlike “aristocracy (that) links everybody, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link…men have gained or kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody” (Tocqueville, 2006, p. 508). The chain that exists in aristocracy no longer exists in democracy for individuals earn their own keep and does not need to rely on others. Thus, with democracy, individuals in capitalist society are independent and equal in social and economic

Alexis de Tocqueville was born on July 29, 1805, in Paris, France. He was a historian, political scientist, and a politician, but he is best known as the author of Democracy in America. He began his political career as an apprentice magistrate, a role he was easily able to enter into due to his father’s role in French government. In the role of apprentice magistrate, Tocqueville witnessed the constitutional upheaval between the conservatives and liberals in France. With the inevitable decline of the aristocratic privilege on the horizon, he began to study the English political development. For Tocqueville, the July Revolution of 1830 and the resulting kingship of Louis Philippe of Orleans helped

De Tocqueville’s Democracy and Aristocracy Argument on Argument states the differences between an Aristocratic and Democratic way of living. The essay begins with the statement, “Among aristocratic nations, as families remain for centuries in the same condition, often on the same spot, all generations become, as it were, contemporaneous.” Giving the illusion that everyone lives in perfect harmony and is satisfied with their current social status. Everyone is content to work, not to improve his own well being, but to improve the wellbeing of his fellow man. By having the support of others, everyone meets their needs. Tocqueville writes “he will frequently sacrifice his personal gratifications to those who went before and to those who will come after him.” This quote gives the impression that people living in an aristocratic nation are unselfish and always willing to help. By always doing the same thing and always remaining at the same social status, people would always know what is depended on them. According to Tocqueville each social status the depends on the other and that is why Aristocracy remains strong like a chain.

And this belief is what motivated his deep interest in America, his visit persuaded him that America had achieved in a peaceful and natural way almost complete equality of conditions. He said if we understand America, we could not only understand what democracy means, but in a way even take a look into the world’s future. He wrote, “ I confess, that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or hope from its progress.” (Democracy in America Volume I) He thought he saw the outlines of a new kind of society, which would slowly become that kind of society for the rest of the world. He saw at first hand democratized society. America became somewhat apprehensive of what they thought. America achieved its independence and many of the French supported America. Many Frenchmen learned their lesson when they came here and then they went back and began. Tocqueville saw the industrial revolution the enlightenment, and the

Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, dwells on the strengths and weaknesses of American democracy. When discussing race relations, he recognizes that the presence of the black race in America and the occupation of blacks in slavery could threaten the continuation of the United States as a Union and a republic. As a Union, the United States could be torn apart by the disparities between the North and the South and tensions between blacks and whites. As a republic, although the United States is more grounded, the aftermath of slavery could erode republican institutions if mores and laws are dangerously altered. Although Tocqueville leaves suggestions of action for the United States, he

Tocqueville saw a problem facing democratic societies, which is mass society. The danger that the majority will become tyrannical creates mass society with the worry that when people are together the view of the majority come to be the dominating principal. Those in the minority will be helpless with no voice and will be pressured to conform into what the majority wants. Conforming to the majority opinion negates the principal of equality. Therefore, an aristocracy can never become a majority while it retains its exclusive privileges, and it cannot yield its privileges without ceasing to be an aristocracy. In a powerful passage, Tocqueville states how this form of tyranny can be worse than the past

Tocqueville’s Democracy in America arose out of the desire to understand the underlying reasons behind the difference between French and American democracies. While both societies have had moved towards democracy, New England, which Tocqueville defines as America, seems to be much more successful in organising a stable democratic society. As such, Democracy in America was written with the motive of mapping out how American society was

Marx’s theory of alienation is concerned primarily with social interaction and production; he believes that we are able to overcome our alienation through human emancipation.

This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.

Tremendous economic and technological growth marked by the industrial revolution that was beginning to take shape at in the 19th century. With this change also brought a process of greater specialization in the workforce, also known as the division of labor. Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, under this context of burgeoning market economy, sought to understand modern society and the underlying relations that lead to their formation and progress. In this essay, I will argue that while both Marx and Durkheim acknowledge the role of economic growth as a main driver of human society in their theories, they differ on the type of social relations that developed in tandem, relations that formed the basis of the division of labor. Marx (1978, p. 212) views the division of labor as a result of the capitalism driven by profit, while Durkheim (1984, p. 1) sees it as a necessary condition for social progress. Next, I will also explore differences both writers posit as the consequences for this process, relating to both Marx’s theory of labor alienation and Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity.

Topic: One of the essential elements to Marx’s alienation concept is that of people or workers being alienated from each other under capitalism, it is still relevant in explaining the problems of the modern world.

Humanity is a part of everyday life, but what if your humanity was lost? All throughout the human existence, there has been humanity. In the time period of humanity, humanity was put to the test. Mass genocides, cruel leaders, world wars, and many more have shown humanity at its lowest. It shows how humanity is completely destroyed in times of injustice and war. Surviving Hitler, by Andrea Warren and The Diary of Anne Frank by Goodrich and Hackett show how the Nazi party dehumanized all Europeans that opposed the Nazi party and how they destroyed their humanity in the process.