The concept of alienation: alternative approaches

• January 10, 2020
• Legislation
• Yulia Abdulbarova

The legal field sometimes confronts us with terms that are not entirely clear and easy to misinterpret. What is alienation? How can this term be related to civil law? What exactly is meant by it? What property can be alienated, and how does this happen? We will answer all questions in the article.

Definition of the term

What is alienation? The process by which property (or the rights to it) passes from one owner to another. Based on the definition, it can already be argued that this is a fairly broad concept.

What is alienation? Sale of an apartment, transfer of a share of real estate as a gift. Confiscation of property for non-payment of a loan. Alienation can be either voluntary or forced. The subjects here can be both individuals and legal entities, municipal and state authorities.

Thus, alienation of property in civil law is considered to be the entire range of options for transferring property from one owner to another. This is sale, donation, inheritance, confiscation, etc.

What is not included in the concept?

We figured out what alienation is. Although this is a fairly broad term that characterizes the transfer of property or certain rights to it, it is worth highlighting procedures that are not it:

• Transfer of property to another person for temporary use (in other words, leasing).
• Relinquishment of ownership rights (refusal of the heir's share in the apartment).
• Loss, damage, destruction of property, loss of rights to it.
• Termination of ownership by court order.

Alienation of a share in common property rights in 2021

It should be noted that a person who is a participant in the common share has the right to a certain ideal share in this property. The Civil Code enshrines the provision that when one of the owners sells his share in the right of common ownership, the other participants have the right to buy this share. This provision does not apply to sales from public contracts.

The person who sells an ownership interest must notify the other participants in writing. In the notification, he must indicate the price and conditions under which the share is sold. If other participants in the common property do not buy the share being sold or refuse to buy it, the seller has the right to sell it on any terms and to any buyer.

When contacting a notary to formalize a transaction for the sale of a share in a common shared property, be prepared to be asked to bring proof that all participants in the property have been notified of the decision. Often, the owners of a common share voluntarily provide the notary with a waiver of the right of pre-emptive acquisition of this share.

This is important to know: How to restore a warrant for a municipal apartment

What is alienable?

Alienation of both the property itself and property rights is possible. What is this? Items, real estate, money, securities and rights to own them. Services, works, and intangible objects of intellectual property cannot be alienated.

Speaking about the alienation of property, experts distinguish three main groups of objects:

• Real estate.
• Securities.
• Copyright Intellectual Right.

Let's get to know them in more detail.

Securities

There are two types of alienation:

• Placement of registered securities (receipt entries will be made on the accounts of the first owners in the registrar or depository).
• Placement of documentary bonds (making credit entries on securities accounts/issuing certificates to the first owners).

Securities are disposed of in almost the same way as real estate. They can be sold, bought, given, exchanged. Securities may be forcibly confiscated.

The concept of alienation: alternative approaches

Marx's concept of alienation as a social disease is systematically reviewed and criticized. This point of view is contrasted with the concept coming from Hegel, according to which there are two types of alienation - free and slave, as well as two types of development - free and slave. Arguments are given in defense of the Hegelian concept of alienation, which has a general ontological character.

The theme of alienation is one of the central ones in modern philosophy, and the question of the religious alienation of man from the absolute is fundamental in the philosophy of religion. The myth of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise - the severance of the direct connection of the first people with God - is interpreted by hermeneuts as the loss of human existence from the essential fullness of being. In a metaphysical sense, religion is the desire of a limited self-existence to rise above its own existence to a higher essential level and overcome the alienation of its ultimate essence. To distinguish between the original heavenly life of souls and the fallen existence of people, Plato relied on the myth of the overthrow of souls from the essential sphere of eternal ideas into material prison bodies; our suffering souls, having lost their divine existence and acquired a miserable earthly existence, dream of returning to the original sphere of the essential. Religious alienation is the alienation of a person from his deepest essence, the deprivation of his state of intimate strengthening in the fullness and unity of being. Such extreme alienation may indeed have once happened to our freedom-loving existence.

Is it never ending? Few thinkers (among them Hegel and Marx) consider it a preliminary, distorted and transitory mode of man, while most prominent philosophers and theologians think of alienation as a hopeless attribute of existence. Thus, P. Tillich writes: “The alienation of man from his essential being is a universal sign of existence. Alienation is an inexhaustible source of many particular evils in any period <…> slavery of the will is a universal fact. It is man's inability to break through his alienation. Despite the power of his ultimate freedom, man is incapable of achieving unity with God” 1 .

The concept of alienation is often given a narrow socio-philosophical meaning: a) it characterizes only human life; b) he is credited with the negative meaning of a social disease. For example, Marxists prefer this definition: a) alienation is the loss by people of their active essence in the conditions of an exploitative society, this is such a loss that turns the essence taken away from a person into an objective force dominating him; b) development will always exist, but alienation will disappear in a communist society along with religion. How philosophically sound is this narrow and clearly ideological interpretation of alienation? As is known, the broad concept of alienation (German Entfremdung) was firmly rooted in European philosophy by Hegel. He gave “alienation” a universal ontological meaning and distinguished between negative and positive aspects in it. Comparing the narrow and broad approaches, I will try to outline the contours of the ontological concept of alienation, based on the dialectic of the concepts of self and other.

A narrow concept of alienation as a social disease

L. Feuerbach described religion as the result of a person’s specific removal from reality. His criticism of religion is based on three premises: a) “God” is his own essence alienated from man, illusorily projected into the sky; b) the alienated essence dominates the consciousness and behavior of a person; c) to overcome unfortunate alienation, a person needs to critically recognize the true relationship between himself and his tyrant image and return to his essence. Developing the ideas of Feuerbach, the classics of Marxism discovered in religion the “sacred image of human self-alienation”: “the earthly basis separates itself from itself and transfers itself to the clouds as a kind of independent kingdom” 2 . In The German Ideology they characterize alienation as “the consolidation of our own product into some material force that dominates us, that is beyond our control, that runs counter to our expectations and nullifies our calculations...” 3 . Marx believed that in religion a person loses his essence and humanity, “... in religion a person is dominated by the product of his own head...” 4. Being, according to Marx’s definition, “the opium of the people,” religion fantastically replenishes (“compensates for”) the limitations and powerlessness of man. But for Marx, unlike Feuerbach, the main thing is not religious alienation, but the alienation of labor.

Sharing Hegel's thesis about the historically transitory nature of human alienation, but not wanting to follow the formula of the eternity of religion, Marx tried to substantiate the possibility - through theoretical criticism and revolutionary practice - of overcoming all alienation and religion in the conditions of the communist formation. To do this, he gave the concept of “alienation of man” a narrow historical and economic meaning and closely tied it to questions about the division of labor, the emergence of private property, social antagonisms, money, etc. For example, in his opinion, “money is the essence of his labor alienated from man and being." In “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” (1844), Marx characterizes labor as the alienation of the generic essence of man, entailing “the alienation of man from man.”

Criticizing Hegel for identifying the concepts of “alienation of spirit” and “objectification of spirit,” Marx talks about “objectification” (in his early works and in Capital) only in relation to human activity (which is very controversial), defining it as the transformation of essential forces and abilities of a person from the form of movement into the form of an object. Objectification is understood by Marxists as an enduring attribute of labor - as such an active side of all labor, thanks to which the environment is humanized and the world of culture is created.

Marx strictly distinguishes “reification” (reification) from “objectification” and gives the latter a strange and limited meaning. Reification, in Marxist terms, is the transformation of social relations from personal into relations of things, when things are personified, endowed with the characteristics of a subject, and become fetishes. Hence the conclusion: reification leads to the depersonalization of a person; human activity becomes machine-like and uncreative. Marx also believed that reification is a historically transitory process, it is characteristic only of commodity production and capitalism and will disappear with the socialization of labor. The communist revolution eliminates the powerlessness of the working people, makes people conscious, free and creative, the workers take control of the economy, destroy reification and receive every opportunity to realize themselves. By abolishing alienation and reification, communism forever preserves appropriation and reification. In an interview with a Chicago Tribune reporter, Marx said: “...Religion will disappear to the extent that socialism develops. Its disappearance must occur as a result of social development, in which education plays a major role" 5 .

In his book “Religious Alienation,” the famous Ural atheist V.I. Kolosnitsyn concisely and accurately expressed the essence of the Marxist concept of alienation: “But if development is a process that characterizes the entire history of human activity, then alienation is a concrete historical phenomenon that arises due to specific reasons at a certain stage of history and dying out along with their elimination. Alienation is lack of freedom... before society, before people’s own essential forces, appearing in an objectified, objectified and hostile form to man... Socio-economic and political alienation, alienation from nature, and then spiritual alienation are the subject of religious reflection, the emergence of alienation is the main condition the origin of religion, and its dying out is a necessary condition for its overcoming” 6 .

The Marxist concept of human alienation is consistent, fruitful and, undoubtedly, should be applied, but only where we are talking exclusively about one form of human alienation, namely slave alienation, and no more. The Marxist version of “slave alienation” is, in my opinion, a particular and inaccurate modification of the universal ontology of alienation. As for the Marxist idea of ​​“reification,” then let me remind the reader of the meanings that are organic to this term and familiar to the general public. Reification (from Latin res - thing, reification) is: a) the transition of energy into matter; b) embodiment of the image in the form of a thing; b) transformation of opportunity into a spatial substrate; c) giving properties and relationships the form of a thing. Why disfigure this multidimensional concept and groundlessly deprive it of its traditional meaning? The conclusions of Marx and Russian Marxists about the “approaching end of religious alienation” are obviously based on deliberately narrow and ideological definitions of alienation and reification - definitions subordinated to the militant-atheistic prospect of the destruction of religion by the coming socialist state.

The narrow Marxist concept of alienation as a “social disease” has had a powerful influence on modern socio-philosophical concepts of alienation. Their authors assess alienation extremely negatively in both objective and subjective aspects, but unlike Marx, they do not offer radical forms of healing, considering human alienation as a whole irremovable (Durkheim, Tönnies, Spengler, Jaspers, Weber, Simmel, Merton, Marcuse, Fromm , Arend, etc.).

In the subjective aspect, among the negative experiences of alienation, the following are especially distinguished: a) a feeling of the meaninglessness of life; b) a feeling of powerlessness due to the pressure of external circumstances and loss of self-control; c) distrust of other people due to their violation of norms of behavior and assumed obligations; d) rejection of existing cultural values; e) melancholy of loneliness associated with social isolation or confinement in a small group; f) depersonalization and self-alienation, a feeling of unreality of oneself or the outside world, a severance of connection with one’s self. The occurrence of depersonalization is often explained as an unconscious defensive reaction to the need to escape from a hostile world.

These are the objective and subjective features of human alienation, assessed by the majority of representatives of social philosophy as a painful condition. But alienation (including religious alienation) hardly entirely falls under the category of a social disease.

The broad concept of alienation in Hegel's philosophy

Before Hegel, the concept of alienation was primarily of a legal nature. Thus, in the theories of the social contract of Hobbes and Rousseau, the term “alienation” refers to the process of depersonalization and deindividuation of social relations when transferring individual rights to the state. According to Fichte, “alienation” is the positing of the object “not-I” by the pure “I”. Hegel expands the scope of this concept: he introduces into his philosophical system the fundamental concept of alienation, defining it as: a) objectification, reification and objectification of the absolute idea; b) the process and result of the loss of any individual quality (self-existence) of a greater or lesser share of its own content (properties, relationships, functions, substrate).

Hegel's system, as is known, begins with the pantheistic doctrine of the alienation of the world mind into the material world. Renouncing its true essence, the absolute idea turns itself into an “external mirror”: it exteriorizes itself into nature and history, appears in the form of finite things, organisms and people. Thus, the objective world is an alienated absolute idea. The final goal of alienating an idea from its essence has two positive aspects: a) self-development; b) self-knowledge through “mirror” things with the help of the totality of individual human spirits (absolute spirit). The German thinker manages to metaphysically imagine only one way of self-alienation of the world mind, namely the method of objectifying the spirit through its objectification and reification.

In the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel describes the dramatic “Odyssey of the Spirit,” the return of the spirit to its home. In his theory of master and slave, the philosopher proves a very curious and important thesis: we are how we ourselves and others have defined us; To a large extent, self-existence is that which is determined by the existence of others. People, as executors of the goal of the absolute idea, sooner or later master the essences of things, reduce these essences to their universal ideal basis, and thereby eliminate the alienated state of the world. “Enlightenment completes alienation,” Hegel asserts, “... the previously alienated spirit completely retreats back into itself, leaves this land of education... reduces this opposition to a transparent form and finds itself in it” 7 . Human alienation is sooner or later overcome by reconciliation in history.

This is the logic of pantheism: absolute being emanates (alienates itself) into existence, then returns to itself from materialized objective forms; total alienation is eventually overcome. In pantheism there is no concept of unconditional alienation, since it is illogical to admit the possibility of a complete separation of the immanent deity from its external manifestations. Since the world mind only temporarily and of its own free will alienates itself into nature, maintaining and increasing connections with alienated forms, such alienation is relative - it is rather the appearance of alienation. Religious alienation is interpreted in a fundamentally different way in theism - in teachings that place the creative principle beyond the boundaries of the created world and recognize the creation of the world “out of nothing” (and not out of itself, as in pantheism). They allow for the possibility of an absolute loss of the connection between nature and humanity with the Creator. Then “the world lies in evil,” humanity is truly abandoned by an angry and condemning God, and people themselves, without the help of God, are not able to really overcome their total alienation. Many Christians believe that the state of suffering due to man's absolute alienation from God, hopeless and desperate, will last until the end of world history. And yet, the example of the risen Savior gives people hope for their general resurrection at the end of all times.

Marxists reproach Hegel for identifying alienation with reification, and existentialists do not accept Hegel’s optimistic belief in the possibility of overcoming human alienation at some stage in human history. But if we switch from the question of alienation of the absolute idea to Hegel’s more “down-to-earth” theory of reflection, we will see that it describes the process of ontic alienation in interacting things a little differently and in more detail. This theory is most compactly presented by Hegel in “The Science of Logic” 8. Briefly, its essence, in my opinion, is as follows 9.

The interaction of one’s own and another’s (self-existence and other-existence) is the reason for the mutual reflection and mutual change of any external and internal opposites. Between arbitrarily taken A and B, the forces of attraction and repulsion, creation and destruction simultaneously act. Both forces are characterized by negative-positive tension, transform into each other, and mutually circulate. Like Goethe’s Mephistopheles (“a part of the eternal power of the self, which always wanted evil and did only good”), dialectical negativity turns everything upside down, crushes the old and at the same time creates the new. Alienation is associated with assimilation - the tendency of self-existence to annex, adapt and absorb moments of “otherness” (other, alien).

In the case of human existence, development is largely determined by temptations, lusts, and the desires of others, which is certainly fraught with suffering and loss. (Let me remind you of one of Gautama’s revelations: life is suffering, the cause of suffering is desires.) Alienation is a manifestation of the law “Action equals reaction”: the more development, the stronger the alienation (remember the biblical truth: “Many knowledge - many sorrows”). Mastery, therefore, is ambivalent, incorporating both gains and losses. They master someone else’s, alienate their own. When A (one’s own) and B (another’s) actively interact, then the alien, in the form of its copy in (B), partially penetrates into the base of A and gradually masters it there, becoming “its other.” The alien in (B) is capable of significantly changing and degenerating A from within, on the territory of A itself, so that the development of the alien is fraught with the alienation of one’s own.

Starting at the base of A, the quantitative process of the loss of part of the moments of self-existence can end with a qualitative leap - the emergence of a new being as the identity of mutually changed A and b(B). In this emergent C, one’s own and one’s other are invisibly sublated. Here is an emergent metaphor: the image of the emergence of green from the synthesis of blue and yellow colors. The new being C is irreducible neither to A, nor to b(B), nor to their mechanical sum. Alienated can be: a) some changing component A in the inner being of A itself - a component that has not yet been removed, not objectified and not objectified in the future substrate C; b) some component a(A) or A as a whole, if they are dialectically sublated and invisibly reside in a substance of new quality C.

What is objectified and objectified is not necessarily alienated, and what is alienated is not necessarily objectified and objectified. Alienation is not identical to objectification, but is partly related to the latter. So, on the one hand, a person can “lose his Self” and become “friend or stranger” long before the objectification and materialization of his mental plans. On the other hand, it makes no sense to call a person’s objectification of his ideas and plans in the form of material property belonging to him “loss of one’s own,” “alienation.” Sometimes objectification may include a certain percentage of alienation, and sometimes (for example, with the complete confiscation of what has been objectified) objectification actually coincides with total alienation.

Contours of the universal ontology of alienation

The Hegelian concept of alienation as “partial or complete loss of one’s own” is applicable to explaining the fundamental transformations of any individual being, be it a chemical compound, an organism, a person, a social institution, a thought or an idea. This broad concept is convenient for thinking about both objective-material and subjective-ideal processes of loss of elements of selfhood. It is also suitable for talking about the dehumanization (impoverishment, perversion, degeneration) of the generic essence of man. In turn, the phenomenon of human alienation has different aspects: a) spiritual and material; b) individual and social; c) religious, economic, political, environmental, technological, etc. Expanding the scope of the concept of “alienation” (from its status as a socio-philosophical concept, established under the influence of Marxism, to restoring it to its original Hegelian status as a universal ontological category) is similar to a change in during the twentieth century. the meaning of the concept “information”. Previously, “information” meant human knowledge, but now it refers to the content of any reflection process in all kinds of systems with feedback. The same is the case with the concept of “alienation”: sociophilosophers linked it only with human losses, but there was a need to return to its original broad definition in order to designate with this concept the processes of degeneration of the quality of integrity of any kind. What characteristics then should be assigned to alienation “in general”?

Taking into account the essence of Hegel’s theory of reflection, it is logical to define alienation as the transformation of a part, essence or entirety of one’s own (self-existence A) into something else, different, alien, independent of it (other-existence B). The alienated, like the alien, can relate to A in different ways. Having become independent of A, alienated being in some cases behaves completely neutral and indifferent in relation to A; in other situations it actively and friendlyly contributes to the preservation and evolution of A; sometimes, on the contrary, it is hostile to A, enslaves him and dominates him. Alienation can be: a) partial (loss of an important or minor part A); b) radical (weak connection between A and his own essence); c) total (complete degeneration of the integrity of A, the sublation of the original self-existence in the otherness of B).

Human alienation, as a special form of universal alienation, can be either objectively real and genuine, or subjectively erroneous and illusory; the same can be said about the nature of overcoming one or another type of human alienation. If we recognize the Christian truth that the generic essence of man is the “image of God,” then the alienation of this image should be understood as the dehumanization of man. If, in a Marxist way, we consider “labor” to be the generic essence of man, then we must conclude that the alienation of labor entails the dehumanization of man. Summarizing the views of supporters and opponents of the eternity of alienation, it is reasonable to assume: a) some types of alienation (for example, religious, socio-political) are historically inevitable, indefinite and insurmountable; b) others (for example, everyday alienating conflicts between individuals and social groups) are completely surmountable within a finite period of time.

It makes sense to distinguish: a) “ontological alienation,” denoting the fundamental gap between existence and its absolute essence; b) “ontic alienation” - as a loss of connection between existence and its less profound essences. Essential orders of being are divided into essences: a) substantial (matter-substance, spiritual origin); b) substrate (physical, chemical, biological, social); c) singular (specific essence of an individual object or person). The unity of the world consists of contradictory relationships of all essential orders included in the hierarchy of levels of integrity. The concept of “self-existence of existential integrity” can mean not only the selfhood of an individual person, but also the integrity of: a) the cosmos; b) Earth; c) biogeocenosis; c) humanity; d) different peoples; e) social groups. Consequently, there are as many basic types of alienation as there are basic levels of original integrity and orders of the essence of being; and the description of each type of alienation requires its specification.

When they say that “man is a microcosm,” they mean that all the essential levels (dimensions) of the cosmos are concentrated in man; Consequently, the concept of religious alienation of a person indirectly indicates that a person is characterized by all the main types of ontic alienation (physical, chemical, biological and social), ultimately determined by the ontological split between the existence of man and his absolute essence. Religious alienation is, by definition, ontological alienation, and non-religious alienation has an ontic character. Religious alienation is the loss and desacralization by man of his ultimate essence. The definition of “genuine” religious alienation depends on the choice of the criterion of “unconditional depth” of the human essence to be sacralized. Some believers see their “unconditional essence” in a supernatural beginning, others - in the cosmic center, others - in the center of society, others - in the abyss of personal self-consciousness, etc. That is why there are so many ideas about religion, its classifications and modes of religious alienation.

Obviously, not every alienation is of a religious nature. Types of non-religious alienation are correlated with various circumstances of the loss of essences of less profound orders, thoughts about which usually do not cause sacred awe in people. The formal possibility of breaking the connection between existence and infinite being is rooted in the discontinuity and finitude of existence. Thus, knowledge of one’s own death gives rise to uncertainty in a person about the strength of the connection with the generic essence. But this uncertainty in itself is not sufficient for the event of alienation; the real development of uncertainty into a state of alienation requires additional conditions and reasons.

“Ontic alienation” can be called: catastrophic metamorphoses of stars and planets, severing the connections of plants and animals with their “native” habitat, etc., as well as specific “experiences” by higher animals of life losses (freedom of movement, connections with a partner, etc. ). Of course, human alienation (not only ontological, but also ontic) is fundamentally different from non-human forms of “loss of one’s own” in that it presupposes personal freedom, consciousness, and reason. The loss of freedom by a person as an individual and his experience of despair is far from the same as, say, the howl of a chained dog for freedom or a dog’s longing for a missing owner. And yet both situations are similar to “losing one’s own.” In turn, individual human alienation or self-alienation (real or illusory) obviously differs significantly from the alienation experienced in different eras by any people or humanity as a whole.

Human freedom is formed by the processes of losing one’s own (“freedom from”) and appropriating someone else’s (“freedom for”). To master something else, it is necessary to alienate at least part of one’s own. Here are three examples. Let's say you need someone else's product. To do this, they sell on the market what they themselves have produced (the process of alienation), and with the money received they purchase the necessary thing from someone else (the process of development). In a free market, alienation and development are in equilibrium. Another example: an artist freely and gladly gives (alienates) his painting to a friend. Third example: mutual love is based on mutual bestowal - the harmony of alienation and development. In all these examples, freedom is obviously a harmonious measure of the alienation of one’s own and the development of someone else’s. On the contrary, excessive development and radical alienation threaten a person with the loss of his independence. Therefore, it is logical to divide alienation and development on the basis of “freedom - slavery” into two opposite types: a) free alienation and free development; b) slave alienation and slave development.

Not all forms of alienation are associated with a loss of freedom and, on the contrary, some forms of development lead to a loss of freedom. Thus, contrary to the beliefs of Marxists and existentialists: a) alienation is not entirely a “social quality”; natural and individual substrates and functions are also removed from it; b) not every alienation is absolutely negative, leads to the loss of freedom and is opposite to freedom; c) not every development should be taken with a “plus” sign and glorified as a symbol of freedom; d) not every (but only specific) alienation is inhumane, associated with depersonalization, meaninglessness, tragedies and sorrows.

From the Hegelian concept of the sublation of oneself in the other, the conclusion suggests itself about the existence of various positive aspects of alienation. Two aspects have already been said: alienation is a condition for: a) self-development of all forms of spirit; b) self-knowledge through the development of one’s own alienated forms, developing in the structure of otherness. The third positive aspect of alienation is saving oneself through something else. Withdrawal is a kind of salvation of existence in infinite existence through its withdrawal from itself and reincarnation in another substrate. The dialectical sublation (aufheben) of self-existence, moreover, means the abolition of shortcomings in the content alienated from it, as well as the raising of the latter to a higher level. So, the artist embodies his Self in a self-portrait and parts with it - say, gives it to an art gallery. Moreover, the author fervently believes and really hopes that the stamp of his spirit will forever remain in the public consciousness of participating in the life of an endless series of generations.

The withdrawal of alienated existence into being is, on the one hand, the separation of the finite and the infinite as external opposites, and on the other hand, the sublated finite self-existence is internally reunited with the infinite origin. According to Hegel, everything finite strives to exceed its boundaries and is sublated into infinite being; the infinite - like the otherworldliness and non-existence of existence - is burdened with the finite; the finite and the infinite are inseparable from each other 10. Consequently, alienation-as-sublation is a necessary condition for the salvation of self-existence in its reincarnated-reflected form. Sublation is a special and curious form of salvation - the preservation of what is denied in the form of a transformed imprint in something else, finite or infinite. Human salvation also requires atonement, overcoming the guilt for the coveted development of someone else's. F. Schleiermacher considered human longing for the infinite and the craving for existence to be a truly religious feeling. Religion in this sense is: a) a person’s feeling of the abyss between the finite and the infinite; b) the desire to bridge this gap; c) faith in the possibility of salvation on the “other side” of the finite. Religious salvation is defined as the restoration of the ultimate integrity of the alienated person, reunification with the absolute essence.

The Savior-mediator between existence and being seems to be such a wonderful procedural border (path) between them, in which the transformed existence is ideally (German: Ideelle - in a removed form) fused with a special substrate - the messenger of eternity. A saving borderline existence is expected as a phenomenon of the “new eon”, in which the dualism of the finite and the infinite is supersensibly and eternally embodied. Mass participation in the aeon-medium may require a long evolution of faith in the possibility of overcoming alienation to infinite existence. In the case of the artist’s depiction of his Self, his self-portrait can be considered as a “project of an aeon-savior.” The author perpetuates the transformed and alienated Self in durable material. His artistic work can indeed become a moment of completeness of world art and live indefinitely in the original and copies. “At the same time, the final properties of the artistic material as a representative of the Absolute,” writes V.I. Zhukovsky, “are the properties of the infinite that ends itself, while the final properties of the artist as a person are the properties of the finite that ends itself” 11 .

Like the artistic perpetuation of self-existence, religious salvation presupposes alienation as the sublation of the human in the representative of the absolute. The message of Christians is the risk of faith in the saving power of the unique and ideal God-man - Jesus Christ. The most important names of Christ: the only begotten Son of God, Son of David, Mediator, Messiah, Savior, Logos. In Christ, as in the “New Being,” religious consciousness recognizes the overcoming of the gap between the finite and the infinite, and sees the symbol and fact of the reunification of flesh and being. Christ is the Way, the mediator between people and God. “He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me,” says Jesus (John 12:44). Through the cross (martyrdom of the flesh), miraculous resurrection and transfiguration, Christ returns to eternal life. The willingness of ordinary Christians to follow Christ's example requires an indefinite period of preparation—until the end of history. The end of history coincides with its goal - the salvation of humanity and is identified with Parousia, the second coming of Christ.

The transition period from “not yet” to “already” the realization of the possibility of saving humanity, according to Christian doctrine, lasts from the moment of the Good News of the Savior to Parousia. Since Christ is called the “Head of the Church”, and the Church itself is called the “body of Christ”, then, by analogy with the artist’s self-portrait, in the Church one can see a symbol of the beginning unity of existence with being through the conciliar fullness of faith of all believers. The Apostle Paul said that participation in church life is the birth of a “new creation in Christ.” For two thousand years, Christians have seen in the Church the saving power of mediation between existence and being, considering it the entrance to the “New Being”. The Church is the materialization of the risk of faith in overcoming ontological alienation. Without it, Christ is not the Savior, since it is the Church that condenses and materializes the faith and hopes of people into the means of salvation. And without Christ - both as a symbol and as a historical phenomenon - the Church would have lost its spiritualizing power and therapeutic ability.

Thus, it is not enough to understand alienation only in the light of its narrow and negative interpretation by social philosophers. One should not see in alienation only something negative, a social illness and loss of freedom, but one should endow development with exclusively positive features and look for an unconditional sign of freedom in it. There is an alternative to the socio-philosophical concept - the ontological concept of negative and positive signs of alienation and development. In my opinion, it is more logical to give preference to this second alternative, which is more plausible and dialectical.

Bibliography

1 Tillich P. Systematic theology. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. 1–2. P. 352.

2 Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 3. P. 2.

3 Ibid. P. 32.

4 Ibid. T. 23. P. 635.

5 Marx K., Engels F. On atheism, religion and the church. M., 1986. P. 517.

6 Kolosnitsyn V.I. Religious alienation. Sverdlovsk, 1987. pp. 11–12, 16.

7 Hegel G. V. F. Phenomenology of spirit. St. Petersburg, 1992. S. 262, 321.

8 See: Hegel G.V.F. Science of Logic: In 3 vols. M., 1970–1972.

9 See for more details: Lyubutin K. N., Pivovarov D. V. Dialectics of subject and object. Ekaterinburg, 1993. pp. 218–236; They are. Synthetic theory of the ideal. Ekaterinburg; Pskov, 2000. pp. 23–43.

10 See: Hegel G.V.F. The Science of Logic. M., 1970. T. 1. P. 191–220.

11 Zhukovsky V.I., Koptseva N.P. Propositions of the theory of fine arts. Krasnoyarsk, 2004. P. 84.

Copyright

Intellectual property refers to scientific discoveries, works of art, databases, computer programs, technology know-how, production designs, and technological inventions. The owner of the result of such intellectual activity is also its exclusive right holder. That is, he can allow/prohibit other persons to use this thought-out, invented, created thing.

To obtain such an exclusive intellectual right, the author must register it with a government agency. Only after this does it acquire the status of an alienable object. The right becomes possible to sell, exchange or give.

A copyright alienation agreement is a written document. The procedure for payment of monetary remuneration and its amount must be prescribed.

As for the area of ​​property rights, only copyright is alienated. Intellectual and personal moral rights cannot be sold, exchanged or gifted. They do not participate in alienation transactions.

Voluntary options

Analyzing the concept of alienation, we found that this process can be both voluntary and forced. The most common is the first one.

Voluntary alienation of property or rights to it is the following:

• Sale. A transaction that traditionally involves two parties: the seller and the buyer. The alienation of property here is carried out under a purchase and sale agreement. As for real estate transactions, they are possible only after state registration of the owner.
• Giving. Unlike a sale, this is a gratuitous alienation of property. If this is a gift in favor of a relative, then such a transaction in the Russian Federation will be exempt from taxation. If in favor of a person with whom you are not related by family or marriage, then a certain percentage of the value of the gift is paid to the state treasury. However, donation in legal practice often acts as forced alienation. These are cases when unscrupulous relatives or third parties force a person to give them real estate.
• Exchange. At its core, this is the conclusion of two sales and purchase agreements. Therefore, each of the participants in such a transaction simultaneously acts as both a buyer and a seller. According to Russian law, only property of equal value can be exchanged. If the cost of the objects of exchange is different, then personal income tax is paid on the additional payment.
• Rent. This is one of the features of the alienation of real estate. A lifelong annuity agreement is drawn up with the owner of the apartment or house. The buyer undertakes to support the owner of the property for the rest of his life. After the death of the latter, the property becomes the property of the buyer. The sellers here are only individuals and non-profit organizations.

The meaning of the word alienation

an objective social process inherent in a class-antagonistic society and characterized by the transformation of human activity and its results into an independent force that dominates and is hostile to it. The origins of O. are in the antagonistic division of labor and private property. O. is expressed in the dominance of materialized labor over living labor, in the transformation of the individual into an object of exploitation and manipulation by dominant social groups and classes, and in the lack of control over the conditions, means, and product of labor. O. is a historically transitory form of a person’s objectification of his abilities and is associated with the reification and fetishization of social relations. O. also receives a certain psychological expression in the consciousness of the individual (the gap between a person’s expectations, desires and the norms prescribed by the antagonistic social order, the perception of these norms as alien and hostile to the individual, a feeling of isolation, loneliness, the destruction of norms of behavior, etc.). In O., the contradiction between the individual and social institutions, common to all class-antagonistic societies, is complemented by a specific perception of the social and cultural world as alien and hostile to the individual. This is especially aggravated with the emergence of bourgeois relations, which led to the collapse of traditional patriarchal social ties, where the individual is dissolved in the social whole, and to the formation of individualism with its characteristic opposition of the individual to social institutions. O.'s processes were interpreted in the history of social thought primarily in line with the romantic criticism of capitalism. Social contract theorists (T. Hobbes, J. J. Rousseau and others), interpreting the emergence of society as an act of a person transferring his rights to a political body, saw in this the source of man’s enslavement and his loss of his original freedom. F. Schiller, stating the internal fragmentation of modern man, views it as a consequence of the division of labor and sees in the aesthetic sphere a path to restoring lost integrity. This line of aesthetic criticism of bourgeois society and the art associated with it was developed by German and French romanticism, which contrasted the world of art with the ideal of an integral patriarchal communal life. The category O. is one of the central ones in Hegel’s philosophy. It is a way of constructing his philosophical system: nature and history are the essence of objectification, the O. of the absolute spirit. In addition, the category of O. characterizes Hegel’s specific attitude to the reality he created in the conditions of a bourgeois legal society. In “Phenomenology of Spirit”, analyzing bourgeois society - the world of “spirit alienated from itself”, Hegel notes that reality appears here for the individual as “... something directly alienated...”; self-consciousness “... creates its own world and treats it as some alien world, so that from now on it must take possession of it” (Soch., vol. 4, M., 1959, pp. 264, 263). Real O. is interpreted by Hegel as the O. of the spirit, and overcoming O. as a theoretical awareness of the untruth of O. This is the “uncritical positivism” of Hegel, which was noted by K. Marx; Hegel does not distinguish between objectification and O.; he identifies O. with the objectification of human abilities. L. Feuerbach, in his criticism of Hegel, gives an anthropological interpretation of O. Considering religion as the O. objective-sensual essence of man, he sees the reasons for this O. in psychological states - a feeling of dependence, fear, etc. The sensual nature of man is interpreted by him as “ inalienable” foundation of human life and is contrasted with the untrue world of O. ≈ idealism, theology, etc. This line of opposition between the “true” and “inauthentic” state, the world of O. and love is even more intensified among the Young Hegelians (B. Bauer, M. Hess ), from various petty-bourgeois ideologists of the 40s-50s. 19th century (P. J. Proudhon, M. Stirner, etc.). The Marxist understanding of philosophy was formed in polemics with both the objective-idealistic concept of philosophy and its anthropological and psychological interpretation. Criticizing the romantic-utopian, moralistic ideas about philosophy, the founders of Marxism contrasted this with a view of philosophy as an objective social process. As the materialistic understanding of history developed, the understanding of philosophy deepened. From the analysis of philosophy in the sphere of spiritual life (religion, idealistic philosophy), K. Marx and F. Engels moved on to the study of philosophy in political life (bureaucracy, the role of the state), and then to understanding the processes of accounting in the economic sphere. In the works of the early 1840s. The problem of alienated labor is analyzed: the identity of the worker from the process and results of labor, the worker’s identity from his generic, social essence, and, finally, the worker’s identity from himself. If in these works Marx and Engels still derived philosophy from the worker’s relationship to his labor, then already in The German Ideology (1845–46) and especially in Marx’s economic works of the 1860–70s. The sources of O. are profound socio-economic changes - the capitalist division of labor, the spontaneous nature of aggregate social activity in conditions of antagonistic formations, the dominance of private property and commodity-money relations, the transformation of labor into a means of subsistence, partial social functions into the lifelong vocation of certain individuals, layers, classes. The analysis of O. was based on a scientific foundation - the economic theory of Marxism, the doctrine of commodity fetishism. The works of Marx and Engels reveal the following main points of O. in capitalist society:

1. O. the very activity of man, who emerges from the labor process impoverished and devastated, “... alienation of the content of labor in relation to the worker himself...” (Marx K., see Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., t 46, part 1, p. 440).
2. O. working conditions from the work itself. “... Objective conditions of labor are acquiring increasingly colossal independence in relation to living labor, independence expressed in their very size... social wealth in ever more powerful accumulations confronts labor as an alien and dominant force” (ibid., part 2, p. . 346≈47). The worker is confronted in an alienated form as capital not only by the material but also by the intellectual conditions of his labor. This is especially obvious in the philosophy of production management and in the science of worker science. “Science appears as an alien force, hostile to labor and dominating it...” (ibid., vol. 47, p. 555).
3. O. results of labor from the hired worker, leading to the fact that “... the wealth created by him is opposed as alien wealth, his own productive power ≈ as the productive power of his product, his enrichment ≈ as self-impoverishment, his social power ≈ as the power of society ruling over him” (ibid., vol. 26, part 3, p. 268).
4. Alienation of social institutions and the norms prescribed by them from workers. Thus, in the state, the common interest “... takes an independent form, divorced from real ≈ both individual and joint ≈ interests, and at the same time the form of an illusory community” (ibid., vol. 3, p. 32). In the process of historical development, the orientation of the exploitative state from actual individuals deepens, social institutions turn into bureaucratic systems built on a hierarchical principle.
5. The gap between the values ​​preached by the official ideology and the real opportunities provided by society. The impact of ideology on life leads to the fact that it forms a level of claims, desires and expectations among members of society that does not correspond to the actual capabilities of society. Thus, the ideological values ​​​​proclaimed by bourgeois society: freedom, equality, enterprise, increasingly came into conflict with the real life of bourgeois society, with its economic inequality and exploitation. O. also characterizes the spiritual life of a class society, specific forms of ideological O. are formed (from religion to authoritarian ideologies), and within the culture itself the gap between “mass culture” and the culture of the elite deepens. The understanding of labor as a social phenomenon was further concretized in the doctrine of the absolute and relative impoverishment of the working class, of exploitation as a “real manifestation” of labor (see K. Marx, in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 26, part 3, p. 520), in the Marxist interpretation of social institutions and personality. A sharp ideological struggle unfolded around the Marxist concept of philosophy, the most characteristic features of which are: the opposition of the young, “humanistic” Marx, who analyzed the problems of philosophy, with the mature Marx, who allegedly took a non-humanistic, scientistic (see Scientism) position; interpretation of Marxism as a type of irrationalist anthropology and its rapprochement with existentialism; theological interpretation of O., identifying O. with the Fall. Attacking the practice of socialist construction, right-wing and “left-wing” revisionists (R. Garaudy, E. Fischer, and others) argue that socialism strengthens the ownership of the individual and creates new forms of ownership related to public property and the role of the state under socialism .

   Criticizing the bourgeois and revisionist concepts of philosophy, Marxists in various countries emphasize that socialism destroys the root sources of culture and that the leading tendency of socialism is to overcome poverty, which is carried out in full and final measure along with the building of communism. The general ways to overcome poverty, identified in the theory of scientific communism, consist in the abolition of exploitation, the comprehensive development of social wealth and socialist social relations, in overcoming the opposition between mental and physical labor, city and countryside, in the development of communist consciousness, democratization of management and all public life socialist and communist society. The specific ways and methods of overcoming poverty and the pace of this process depend on the specific characteristics of the countries building a new society, on the level of their development, and on the consciousness of the working class of these countries.

   The position of Marxism, which emphasizes the socio-historical, transitory nature of O., is opposed to the positions of modern bourgeois ideologists who see in O. an eternal characteristic of human life. Common features of the understanding of O. in modern bourgeois philosophy and sociology are anti-historicism, psychologism in the interpretation of the causes of O., and the transformation of O. into an essential characteristic of human existence. Considering many phenomena of O. from the standpoint of O. itself as irreducible moments of social life in general, bourgeois philosophers inevitably come to a tragic perception of the history of society and culture. Already G. Simmel saw the “tragedy of culture” in the contradiction between the creative process and objectified forms of culture. The description of O. in the philosophy and fiction of existentialism is painted in tragic tones. In bourgeois sociology of the 20th century. A number of aspects of the problem of O. were analyzed (without using the term “O.”) in connection with the problem of bureaucracy (K. Mannheim, M. Weber ≈ Germany), social anomie (E. Durkheim ≈ France, R. Merton ≈ USA). In the 1960s In connection with the strengthening of romantic criticism of capitalism, interest in the category of O. as a way of analyzing bourgeois society has revived. This found its expression in the ideology of the so-called “new left” (G. Marcuse - USA, etc.). Many representatives of bourgeois sociology interpret O. as the only possible way of organizing human relations, contrasting it with “small” and “informal” groups deprived of O. In modern American sociology, attempts are being made to empirically study O. M. Seaman proposed 5 criteria for the empirical interpretation of O. (lack of power, loss of meaning in one’s work, lack of norms, isolation, self-alienation), which became a program of sociological research (R. Blauner and others). However, in general, the analysis of real; social conditions and causes, O. is replaced in bourgeois philosophy and sociology by a description of the consciousness and psychology of the individual living in the world of O.

   Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., From early works, M., 1956; them, Capital, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 23≈25; Lenin V.I., State and Revolution, Complete. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 33; Davydov Yu. N., Labor and Freedom, M., 1962; Ogurtsov A.P., Alienation and man. Historical and philosophical essay, in the collection: Man, creativity, science, M., 1967; “Capital” by Marx, philosophy and modernity, M., 1968; Oizerman T.I., The problem of alienation and the bourgeois legend of Marxism, M., 1965; Alienation: the cultural climate of our time, ed. G. Sykes, NY, 1964; Alienation: a casebook, ed. DJ Burrows, FR Lapides, NY, 1969; Geyer RF, Bibliography alienation, 2 ed., Amst., 1972.

   A. P. Ogurtsov.

Forced options

Concluding an agreement for the alienation of property is one of the types of transfer of property or any right to it. In addition, there is also forced variation. It is applied by a court decision on the requisition or confiscation of property. The reasons for this are various situations:

• The property owner cannot pay the debt or child support.
• There is an emergency state necessity - a public danger, a large-scale disaster, etc.
• Confiscation of property from a corrupt official (in the case where the owner could not prove that the property was acquired by him legally, with his own money).

As for the concept of forced alienation in civil law, in this case it can be as follows:

• Collection of property according to the obligations of its owner (under a concluded agreement, court decision, specific law).
• Due to the end of a rental or rental contract.
• For state or municipal needs.
• In connection with the seizure of the land plot on which the property is located.
• Requisition or confiscation of property.
• Termination of rights in the case of property used for its intended purpose.

State alienation

The transfer of ownership of property in some cases is carried out in favor of the state. Here it makes sense to talk about forced state alienation. Example: the owner’s land plot fell into a state development zone. As a result of its alienation, the state is obliged to first compensate the owner for the equivalent value of the property.

There are several ways to forcibly alienate property in favor of the state:

• By decision of municipal, regional, federal executive authorities.
• With a full refund of the price of the object.
• Upon consent to the alienation of the property owner.
• Upon preliminary announcement to the owner of news of forced alienation.
• By a court decision if the government body proves its case (when the owner does not agree to voluntary alienation).

ALIENATION

– a philosophical category, as well as a concept used in sociology, psychology, and law. In jurisprudence, alienation means the legal act of transferring ownership of something from one person to another. In psychology, alienation is a state of emotional and psychological detachment, alienation in relation to someone or something, including oneself, and in English and French the term alienation also means madness. In sociology, the concept of “alienation” is used as a general theoretical one, close to the socio-philosophical content of the category “alienation”.

In philosophy, the category of “alienation” expresses such an objectification of the qualities, results of a person’s activities and relationships, which confronts him as a superior force and turns him from a subject into an object of its influence. The very positing of objectivity by I. G. Fichte

designated as a kind of alienation.
In the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel
, the absolute spirit alienates itself and deprives itself of freedom in order to know itself in this otherness, thereby overcoming self-alienation, returning to itself and gaining absolute freedom - philosophy serves as the final stage of this process of self-knowledge of the spirit.
Hegel illustrated this general construction with concrete historical forms of alienation (formalisms of Roman law, language as the reality of alienation of the spirit, etc.). L. Feuerbach
saw the essence of religion in the fact that the individual alienates his tribal essence from himself and transfers its qualities to the supreme being - God; He associated the unalienated state of man with sensuality, contrasting the alienated world with the direct relationship between man and man, the world of love.

In social philosophy and sociology, alienation is a social relationship, a sociocultural connection between subjects that has escaped their control and become an independent force dominating them. This is the otherness of freedom

, its opposite. A person strives to overcome the existing forms of his alienation and achieve a higher level of freedom. At the same time, it often gives rise to new forms of alienation and falls under their influence.

The socio-economic nature of alienation was revealed by K. Marx

.
In the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,”
he formed the concept of alienated labor: under the rule of private property, the hired worker does not own not only the result as objectified labor, but also the labor process itself. There is also an alienation of man from man and from his tribal life, which turns from an end in itself into a means. Moreover, work becomes a process of self-denial of a person, a way of turning him off from life. Alienation coincides with self-alienation. Later, Marx showed the role of the division of labor and revealed the nature of commodity fetishism as the objective basis of alienation. He remained convinced that it was possible to overcome, to “remove” any alienation by eliminating private property and replacing it with public property. On this basis, alienated labor turns into free self-realization of the essential powers of man, who becomes universally developed and lives in harmonious unity with other people and with nature. This will be “complete humanism” as the core of the communist ideal.

According to Marx, the process of abolishing alienation is by no means straightforward. Its starting point is the direct negation of private property, i.e. “crude” or “barracks” communism, which “is only a form of manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to establish itself as a positive community” (Works, vol. 42, p. 116). This dire warning was subsequently not properly taken into account. The historical experience of the USSR and other countries of real or early socialism has more than confirmed its validity. Instead of the proclaimed freedom for all workers, the dictatorship of the proletariat established a new, truly total alienation of the Soviet person: from power, property, the results of labor, truthful information about history and modern events, personal safety, personal activity, the rational meaning of life. The result was the self-alienation of Soviet society from development: its stagnation arose, it was replaced by a crisis, which ended with the decomposition of the USSR.

Alienation has persisted and is being transformed in its own way in each of the 15 newly independent states - former Soviet republics. The results of sociological research allow us to conclude that in Russia in the 90s. 20th century There are contradictory processes of decomposition of total alienation into its component elements. It ceases to be an integrity that covers all aspects of a person’s life. Processes of reification (the return of a person from an alienated state) have arisen, which are more actively taking place in the spiritual life of Russians: alienation from truthful information has been largely removed, rationalization and liberalization of the value structure of the population has begun. The restoration of the activity of individuals as subjects of property and sources of initiative has also begun; their activities are filled with rational meaning. However, these processes still occur primarily in the outer layers of the activity of individuals (phenomenal reification). In its deep, essential layers, a symbiosis of these forms of reification and new forms of alienation, largely criminal and quasi-democratic, is taking shape. This is, first of all, the alienation of individuals from personal safety and the results of labor, and society from the legal order. There was a sharp economic and political differentiation of the population: new thin layers of large owners and the ruling elite appeared, and the masses of the population were torn away from the property necessary for the middle class

, and are forced to be content with only electoral participation in the processes of forming some government bodies. Among people of mature and elderly ages, with the elimination of mythologized meanings in life, disappointments in the life they have lived have spread.

The main question remains about the possibility of overcoming alienation. Most philosophers of the 20th century. are skeptical about this possibility or give a definitive negative answer. At the same time, they see the main task of philosophy as helping a person to live with dignity in an alienated world that constantly gives rise to fear. Existentialism is particularly aimed at solving this problem.

,
personalism
,
philosophical anthropology
.
“It’s time to write a justification for man, anthropodicy,” said N.A. Berdyaev
.
In any situation, a person has the opportunity to choose and therefore bears responsibility for his actions ( J.-P. Sartre
).
The non- I
confronts a person like a blank, irremovable and dangerous wall, and yet a person is obliged to force himself to live next to it, resist it and create himself (
A. Camus
). This also applies to human existence in situations on the verge of life and death - the individual and all humanity (facing the threat of thermonuclear war).

If many, then the majority of people perceive such a value orientation and begin to act accordingly, then the entire social order will change. In various societies there will be less alienation, more truly human relationships.

Literature:

1. Berdyaev N.A.

About the purpose of a person. M., 1993;

2. Hegel G.V.F.

Phenomenology of spirit.
- He is the same.
Soch., vol. 4. M., 1959;

3. Davydov Yu.N.

Labor and freedom. M., 1962;

4. Camus A.

A rebellious man. M., 1990;

5. Lapin N.I.

From alienation to freedom. – In the book: Philosophical consciousness: the drama of renewal. M., 1991;

6. Marks K.

Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844.
– Marx K.
,
Engels F.
Soch., t. 42. M., 1974;

7. Ogurtsov A.P.

Alienation and man. – In the book: Man, creativity, science. M., 1967;

8. Sartre J.-P.

Wall.
– In the book: Sartre J.-P.
Herostratus. M., 1992;

9. Feuerbach L.

The essence of Christianity.
- He is the same.
Favorite Philosopher proizv., vol. 2. M., 1955;

10. Geyer RF

Bibliography Alienation. Amst., 1972;

11. Geyer RF

Alienation Theories. Oxf., 1980;

12. Lewis HD

Freedom and Alienation. Edinb.; L., 1985.

N.I.Lapin

Legislative regulation

As for the alienation of real estate, the procedure for transferring rights to real estate is regulated by the Civil Code:

• Circumstances under which the possibility of alienation arises: Art. 235, 236, 238.
• Conditions for forced alienation of property: Art. 239, 241, 242.
• Types of alienation of property: Ch. 30 - purchase and sale, section 5 - inheritance, ch. 32 - donation, ch. 31 - exchange, ch. 32 - rent.

In addition, when alienating property, depending on the specific situation, the provisions of the Housing, Family, and Land Codes are used. Tax legislation determines cases when transactions for the alienation of property are subject to tax. Conditions are being introduced under which citizens are exempt from taxes when the amounts of contributions are reduced.

Required Documentation

When drawing up a standard contract for the alienation of property, you must indicate the following data:

• Details of the parties. Last name, first name and patronymic, passport details of individuals and full details of legal entities. To do this, you need identification documents for citizens and title papers for legal entities.
• In case of a paid transaction - financial details of the parties. These are bank statements.
• Grounds for obtaining/transferring ownership, details of documentation confirming it. This is a certificate of ownership, as well as documents designed to establish it - a purchase and sale agreement, a warrant, a certificate of inheritance, etc.
• Description of the object (for example, for real estate - address, condition, number of floors). Technical passport for the property.
• Technical data on the alienation object (for real estate - area, cadastral number, assessment results). Cadastral documentation, an extract from the Unified State Register, and a certificate from the BTI are required.
• Confirmation of the presence or absence of encumbrances. Regarding real estate - certificates of family composition, extracts from the house register.
• Cost of the alienation object. A document with an assessment by an independent expert or a certificate from the BTI.
• Date and place of document preparation.
• Information about third parties whose interests are affected by the alienation of property. It is necessary to obtain their consent to carry out the transaction.
• Additional information that may be relevant to the parties.
• Signatures of each party to the transaction.

What is alienation in civil law? This is the transfer of property (in some cases, rights to it) from one owner to another. Divided into voluntary and forced. Both material objects, securities, real estate, and copyright can be alienated. Each of these transactions has its own individual characteristics.

What documents need to be prepared when alienating property?

In order for the alienation of property to be recognized as legal, the parties to the transaction will need to ensure the correct execution and registration of all documents

In order for the alienation process to be correct, and from a legal point of view, such a transaction cannot be canceled, the parties and participants must know what list of documents is necessary.

On the part of the seller, or the one who alienates, first of all, it is necessary to have a document that confirms his ownership. This can be a purchase and sale agreement, a gift, an inheritance, or a privatization certificate.

If the property is in joint shared ownership, then statements from the other owners will be required that they have been notified of the intentions of alienation and are not against it.

The next thing is the availability of documents from the passport office (district migration service, housing office) about who is registered in the real estate. This is not necessary for commercial real estate.

When conducting a transaction involving the alienation of property, any document or even a certificate may be important; this fact must not be overlooked

If at the time of alienation it is determined that some family members have not been deregistered, then the new owner will have problems with their deregistration. The last thing is the presence or absence of debt for utilities.

Despite the fact that such a certificate is not important and does not affect ownership and disposal, the debt may entail going to court and seizing the apartment or house.

The last document is an extract from the register, which will confirm that at the time of the transaction, the apartment, house or other object is not leased for long-term, there is no arrest or other prohibition on alienation.

If the transaction goes through a notary, then the latter is obliged to check it himself.

There is no need to collect any documents for the person who will become the new owner; the main thing is to check that the buyer has the necessary information.

It is important to know that immediately after concluding an alienation transaction, the new owner must register it in a special state register. And only then will there be a complete transfer of ownership.

Alienation of real estate refers to the process of transferring ownership of it from one owner to a new one. It can be paid or gratuitous.

Watch the video about the alienation of shares in common property rights:

See also Phone numbers for consultation November 30, 2021 Yulia Yuryevna 1131

Share this post

Discussion: 3 comments

1. Ivan says:
   10/13/2018 at 12:54 pm

   I didn’t quite understand the functions of a notary in transactions involving the alienation of real estate. What exactly does he certify if all documents still go through Rosreestr and without his consent to registration the transaction is void?

   Answer

2. Evgeniy says:

   10/05/2020 at 00:17

   Alienation of property is a very long process with a lot of nuances. We did everything through a notary. There was simply no time to run through all the authorities, collect certificates and papers.

   Answer

3. Albina says:

   06.10.2020 at 00:27

   You should not get involved with property that includes a minor child. In 90 percent of cases, problems arose later. If the child is already 14 years old, then it’s easier.

   Answer