What do you think?
Rate this book
Repressive Tolerance
"THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression." --Herbert Marcuse
First published January 1, 1965
4 people are currently reading
378 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Marcuse
232 books634 followersGerman-Jewish philosopher, political theorist and sociologist, and a member of the Frankfurt School. Celebrated as the "Father of the New Left", his best known works are Eros and Civilization, One-Dimensional Man and The Aesthetic Dimension. Marcuse was a major intellectual influence on the New Left and student movements of the 1960s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
September 5, 2016
Pompous, convoluted Hegelian wankery and warmed over proles-versus-bourgeoisie Marxist dichotomy repurposed to justify silencing the Right and privileging the Left.
Arguably, the entire SJW playbook in one essay.
Herbert Marcuse: Repressive Tolerance - http://wp.me/p6lj8t-bd
Arguably, the entire SJW playbook in one essay.
Herbert Marcuse: Repressive Tolerance - http://wp.me/p6lj8t-bd
May 9, 2021
"We must learn from history so that the atrocities of the 20th century do not repeat themselves..."
"Also we're on the right side of the argument and everyone who disagrees with us is suffering from false consciousness. In the name of liberation we must repress these dangerous wrongthinkers by any means necessary!"
Really makes you think.
"Also we're on the right side of the argument and everyone who disagrees with us is suffering from false consciousness. In the name of liberation we must repress these dangerous wrongthinkers by any means necessary!"
Really makes you think.
September 6, 2025
This essay has seen a revival with the return of the culture wars and a left that has decided that tolerating dissent is no longer to its advantage. The essay is a better read than most of its kind, and offers a direct and well thought challenge that cannot be ignored or brushed aside with platitudes, but only defeated with ideas born out of conflict.
Repressive Tolerance is a classic of postmodernism in that it subverts ideas of tolerance, free speech, artistic expression, and the ability of republics to solve their problems through law and politics. For instance, Marcuse writes "...the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought." In other words, the people are not smart enough, free enough, or in today's parlance "woke" enough to make a good decision. That said, Marcuse makes one brilliant observation in an otherwise shoddy work: the democracy we have is so beholden to its militarized bureaucracy, that real change is limited. In a political sense then, our freedom of speech is a shambles in so much as it is more a way to "let off steam" instead of making meaningful change.
The book is different than other postmodernist works in that it makes a moralistic and Marxist argument, thereby discarding the moral relativism of much postmodern thought. Free speech is discarded because it has failed to lead to the truth, which can be discovered rationally and is of course is a hard left interpretation of humanity. However, it being a pomo work, certain ideals are discarded as fiction, such as violence being unethical. Instead, violence is fine so long as it is the oppressed doing the violence. As with any work from the post 1920s left, Fascism is the main enemy, the argument going that Fascism was tolerated when it should have been stamped out in the 1920s and 1930s. There is no mention of communism's ability to pile up body bags. Unlike Marcuse, in the long term we see that communism fuels a conservative backlash. For more on that, simply look at how well conservatives have done in post Cold War eastern Europe. In the end, Marcuse does not believe the revolution will eat its own despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. He side steps it by declaring that most successful rebellions have, despite their violence, made the lot of humanity better overall.
I found the section on art the most disturbing, essentially a prelude to contemporary art which seeks to shock the system and has an overt and singular political agenda. To Marcuse, art is only art when it is radical and left. Just consider this:
"However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under all circumstances. The authentic oeuvre is not and cannot be a prop of oppression, and pseudo-art (which can be such a prop) is not art. Art stands against history, withstands history which has been the history of oppression, for art subjects reality to laws other than the established ones: to the laws of the Form which creates a different reality--negation of the established one even where art depicts the established reality. But in its struggle with history, art subjects itself to history: history enters the definition of art and enters into the distinction between art and pseudo-art. Thus it happens that what was once art becomes pseudo-art."
But hey, at least there is this:
"There are cases where an authentic oeuvre carries a regressive political message--Dostoevski is a case in point. But then, the message is canceled by the oeuvre itself: the regressive political content is absorbed, aufgehoben in the artistic form: in the work as literature."
I leave you with this paragraph that perfectly explains the contemporary left's disdain for free speech, even pointing out that its origins would lay with the demise of the left as a political force: "This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives."
Repressive Tolerance is a classic of postmodernism in that it subverts ideas of tolerance, free speech, artistic expression, and the ability of republics to solve their problems through law and politics. For instance, Marcuse writes "...the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought." In other words, the people are not smart enough, free enough, or in today's parlance "woke" enough to make a good decision. That said, Marcuse makes one brilliant observation in an otherwise shoddy work: the democracy we have is so beholden to its militarized bureaucracy, that real change is limited. In a political sense then, our freedom of speech is a shambles in so much as it is more a way to "let off steam" instead of making meaningful change.
The book is different than other postmodernist works in that it makes a moralistic and Marxist argument, thereby discarding the moral relativism of much postmodern thought. Free speech is discarded because it has failed to lead to the truth, which can be discovered rationally and is of course is a hard left interpretation of humanity. However, it being a pomo work, certain ideals are discarded as fiction, such as violence being unethical. Instead, violence is fine so long as it is the oppressed doing the violence. As with any work from the post 1920s left, Fascism is the main enemy, the argument going that Fascism was tolerated when it should have been stamped out in the 1920s and 1930s. There is no mention of communism's ability to pile up body bags. Unlike Marcuse, in the long term we see that communism fuels a conservative backlash. For more on that, simply look at how well conservatives have done in post Cold War eastern Europe. In the end, Marcuse does not believe the revolution will eat its own despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. He side steps it by declaring that most successful rebellions have, despite their violence, made the lot of humanity better overall.
I found the section on art the most disturbing, essentially a prelude to contemporary art which seeks to shock the system and has an overt and singular political agenda. To Marcuse, art is only art when it is radical and left. Just consider this:
"However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under all circumstances. The authentic oeuvre is not and cannot be a prop of oppression, and pseudo-art (which can be such a prop) is not art. Art stands against history, withstands history which has been the history of oppression, for art subjects reality to laws other than the established ones: to the laws of the Form which creates a different reality--negation of the established one even where art depicts the established reality. But in its struggle with history, art subjects itself to history: history enters the definition of art and enters into the distinction between art and pseudo-art. Thus it happens that what was once art becomes pseudo-art."
But hey, at least there is this:
"There are cases where an authentic oeuvre carries a regressive political message--Dostoevski is a case in point. But then, the message is canceled by the oeuvre itself: the regressive political content is absorbed, aufgehoben in the artistic form: in the work as literature."
I leave you with this paragraph that perfectly explains the contemporary left's disdain for free speech, even pointing out that its origins would lay with the demise of the left as a political force: "This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives."
Read
December 14, 2023"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" If you've ever watched the movie NETWORK you already have a firm grasp of Herbert Marcuses's startling and bold thesis of how advanced capitalist societies practice repressive tolerance. When Howard Beale, the mad prophet of the airwaves, calls on Americans to go to their windows and rooftops to yell that seminal line he is not calling for rebellion and the shouters and not rebels. Yelling is about as effective a way of bringing about political change as holding your breath or throwing a tantrum. Here's where Marcuse gets people angry at him; such vicarious and emotional outbursts aid the ruling class. How? People who get their jollies from shouting, kicking, and screaming are less likely to rebel, not more. All capitalist democracies provide and make room for limited and stage-managed protests. (Notice that in NETWORK the cri de couer becomes the tagline for THE HOWARD BEALE SHOW, with network and FCC approval.) Marcuse, way ahead of his time per custom, realized that infotainment was the best form of repressive tolerance. No TV show ever started a revolution. Was he right? Think about it the next time you watch a movie or news broadcast (same thing) that only appears radical.
P.S. Personal Sado-masochism. I wondered in my teens why the priests and nuns at Catholic schools didn't whip my ass for praising Chairman Mao and advocating a Viet Cong victory in Viet Nam. The answer is repressive tolerance. My Marxist shouts reached only a few receptive ears. Now, if I had questioned the Virgin Birth, that would have earned me the birch.
P.S. Personal Sado-masochism. I wondered in my teens why the priests and nuns at Catholic schools didn't whip my ass for praising Chairman Mao and advocating a Viet Cong victory in Viet Nam. The answer is repressive tolerance. My Marxist shouts reached only a few receptive ears. Now, if I had questioned the Virgin Birth, that would have earned me the birch.
February 12, 2022
This essay advocates for the replacement of liberal principles with authoritarian principles, but seemingly in the name of freedom. This is achieved by misrepresenting and redefining basic terms, and anyone who is familiar with the distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty should recognise this.
The essence of the argument is as follows:
True tolerance, which guarantees self-determination, can be quantified based on the material and intellectual resources available to the masses, which serves as a benchmark for the state of progress of civilisation.
Advocates of liberalism (as characterised as freedom from external interference) must be suppressed in order for true tolerance to develop. The situation is so dire that we need to strip them of their rights and to censor any critic, but all in the name of tolerance.
Pure evil.
The essence of the argument is as follows:
True tolerance, which guarantees self-determination, can be quantified based on the material and intellectual resources available to the masses, which serves as a benchmark for the state of progress of civilisation.
Advocates of liberalism (as characterised as freedom from external interference) must be suppressed in order for true tolerance to develop. The situation is so dire that we need to strip them of their rights and to censor any critic, but all in the name of tolerance.
Pure evil.
February 26, 2021
(Read by James Lindsay on the New Discourses podcast with commentary and the 1968 afterword.)
Horrible ideas by a horrible man living in his own pseudo-reality that we are now somehow living in a fun-house mirror version of.
Horrible ideas by a horrible man living in his own pseudo-reality that we are now somehow living in a fun-house mirror version of.
December 21, 2013
Note to self: "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster."
November 29, 2023
Es könnte sein, dass das ein kopieren von Uni Abgaben von euch als cheated empfunden wird…. Mein Ratschlag: Studiert was anständiges, dann könnt ihr es mir gleich tuen. Shoutout an meinen kleinen Bruder für Korrektur lesen :)
Marcuse differentiates between two forms of tolerance. On the one hand, there is „true“ tolerance, whose ultimate goal is to reduce and overcome repression and violence. This good and true form of tolerance would be strictly intolerant towards intolerant opinions, policies, etc. On the other hand, there is tolerance as it is found in today's industrial societies, which Marcuse calls “repressive” tolerance. Here the concept of tolerance is extended to everything, including policies and conditions that are intolerable. “Repressive” tolerance does not free the oppressed from the oppressor but vice versa represses the already repressed, by tolerating a repressive status quo. This way of grasping tolerance as a passive state of acceptance is merely an “instrument for the continuation of servitude“ (p.2).
Especially in modern, industrial society, it is possible to take measures that lead to peace, the satisfaction of needs, and individual liberty. Therefore it should also be possible to distinguish the opinions, policies, and other movements promoting this goal from the ones repressing it. Essentially, the question is what we should tolerate and what not. But who is qualified to identify what is true and what false, what progressive and what regressive? Marcuse's answer is simple: “Everyone in `the maturity of his faculties as a human being` (Mill), everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously” (p.10). Following Mill, Marcuse argues that there is no truth without liberty. So only those who are able to think freely and autonomously can distinguish the tolerable from the intolerable.
Marcuse’s claim, in this text as well as elaborated in depth in his book “One Dimensional Man” is that in the established system people are “indoctrinated and manipulated down to their very instincts” (Marcuse ODM p.36) by capitalistic ideology so that they cannot be called free and autonomous. What those people claim to be their real interests etc. “cannot be taken as their own”. A condition that Mill sets is that tolerance can only be “applied to human beings in the maturity of their faculties”(p.2). Marcuse believes that most people do not fulfil this criterion. His point is that we live in a formally free, but effectively closed system, in which people are unfree to such a degree that they do not even know what they want or need. Inside this system, everything is tolerated because people are unable to distinguish between the truth and untruth, the tolerable and intolerable. Tolerance has been perverted in the sense that everything is per se tolerated without distinction. Stupid and intelligent opinions, truth and untruth, violence from the oppressor, and violence from the oppressed are forced into line in the name of tolerance.
I find Marcuse's position that viewing and tolerating every opinion as equally worthy is problematic, very reasonable. In tolerating intolerant opinions and behaviour absolute tolerance annihilates itself. However, I find his radical way of dealing with the problem of who decides what is true and what false, which opinion stupid and which intelligent, and therefore what is tolerable and what not, fundamentally undemocratic, since one key element underlying democracy is the assumption that every adult is equally capable (R. Dahl 1998). Marcuse does not do that even though he wants to achieve this required autonomy in the long run.
I understand that the point he is trying to make is that many people are not autonomous in the established system. Nonetheless, claiming that currently only a few people are able to think autonomously and thereby disregarding most people's interests and opinions as not being their “actual ones” has quite an authoritarian taste to it. Stating that people have different opinions and interests than they articulate can be dangerous, even if there is good reason to believe so. Examples of this
argument being misused terribly are the euthanasia killings during World War II, or the problematic treatment of Alzheimer patients. In fact, the assumption of there being a “real person” apart from the indoctrinated one is in my opinion questionable itself.
Not respecting the state's monopoly of force infringes another core principle of democracy. For Marcuse the ends justify the means in this case. In my understanding he calls for an undemocratic and possibly violent revolution to overcome authoritarian and violent structures. His argumentation only makes sense If we perceive the system that we live in as fundamentally unjust. I am not sure where I stand on this point yet.
It is also questionable what such a revolution would look like and especially how it would affect people's mindsets. I do not see the immediate correlation between overthrowing the establishment and people’s ability to think autonomously.
Even though I understand what the blog means with its critique of Marcuse’s text being authoritarian, I believe the author misses the intention of Marcuse's endeavour. The sole purpose of not tolerating false, repressive opinions and with that the established system is to get rid of authoritarian structures and enable people to be freer and more autonomous. In Marcuse’s view the measures he suggests are necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of human freedom.
Marcuse differentiates between two forms of tolerance. On the one hand, there is „true“ tolerance, whose ultimate goal is to reduce and overcome repression and violence. This good and true form of tolerance would be strictly intolerant towards intolerant opinions, policies, etc. On the other hand, there is tolerance as it is found in today's industrial societies, which Marcuse calls “repressive” tolerance. Here the concept of tolerance is extended to everything, including policies and conditions that are intolerable. “Repressive” tolerance does not free the oppressed from the oppressor but vice versa represses the already repressed, by tolerating a repressive status quo. This way of grasping tolerance as a passive state of acceptance is merely an “instrument for the continuation of servitude“ (p.2).
Especially in modern, industrial society, it is possible to take measures that lead to peace, the satisfaction of needs, and individual liberty. Therefore it should also be possible to distinguish the opinions, policies, and other movements promoting this goal from the ones repressing it. Essentially, the question is what we should tolerate and what not. But who is qualified to identify what is true and what false, what progressive and what regressive? Marcuse's answer is simple: “Everyone in `the maturity of his faculties as a human being` (Mill), everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously” (p.10). Following Mill, Marcuse argues that there is no truth without liberty. So only those who are able to think freely and autonomously can distinguish the tolerable from the intolerable.
Marcuse’s claim, in this text as well as elaborated in depth in his book “One Dimensional Man” is that in the established system people are “indoctrinated and manipulated down to their very instincts” (Marcuse ODM p.36) by capitalistic ideology so that they cannot be called free and autonomous. What those people claim to be their real interests etc. “cannot be taken as their own”. A condition that Mill sets is that tolerance can only be “applied to human beings in the maturity of their faculties”(p.2). Marcuse believes that most people do not fulfil this criterion. His point is that we live in a formally free, but effectively closed system, in which people are unfree to such a degree that they do not even know what they want or need. Inside this system, everything is tolerated because people are unable to distinguish between the truth and untruth, the tolerable and intolerable. Tolerance has been perverted in the sense that everything is per se tolerated without distinction. Stupid and intelligent opinions, truth and untruth, violence from the oppressor, and violence from the oppressed are forced into line in the name of tolerance.
I find Marcuse's position that viewing and tolerating every opinion as equally worthy is problematic, very reasonable. In tolerating intolerant opinions and behaviour absolute tolerance annihilates itself. However, I find his radical way of dealing with the problem of who decides what is true and what false, which opinion stupid and which intelligent, and therefore what is tolerable and what not, fundamentally undemocratic, since one key element underlying democracy is the assumption that every adult is equally capable (R. Dahl 1998). Marcuse does not do that even though he wants to achieve this required autonomy in the long run.
I understand that the point he is trying to make is that many people are not autonomous in the established system. Nonetheless, claiming that currently only a few people are able to think autonomously and thereby disregarding most people's interests and opinions as not being their “actual ones” has quite an authoritarian taste to it. Stating that people have different opinions and interests than they articulate can be dangerous, even if there is good reason to believe so. Examples of this
argument being misused terribly are the euthanasia killings during World War II, or the problematic treatment of Alzheimer patients. In fact, the assumption of there being a “real person” apart from the indoctrinated one is in my opinion questionable itself.
Not respecting the state's monopoly of force infringes another core principle of democracy. For Marcuse the ends justify the means in this case. In my understanding he calls for an undemocratic and possibly violent revolution to overcome authoritarian and violent structures. His argumentation only makes sense If we perceive the system that we live in as fundamentally unjust. I am not sure where I stand on this point yet.
It is also questionable what such a revolution would look like and especially how it would affect people's mindsets. I do not see the immediate correlation between overthrowing the establishment and people’s ability to think autonomously.
Even though I understand what the blog means with its critique of Marcuse’s text being authoritarian, I believe the author misses the intention of Marcuse's endeavour. The sole purpose of not tolerating false, repressive opinions and with that the established system is to get rid of authoritarian structures and enable people to be freer and more autonomous. In Marcuse’s view the measures he suggests are necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of human freedom.
February 21, 2021
One of the most totalitarian pieces of literature written.. on par with Mein Kampf. Very interesting read. Many parallels can be made with what's going on now.
June 15, 2022
I've been out of the habit of rating books with stars for several years, and I am especially not fond of prescribing star ratings to nonfiction books, but I'm giving this a robust five to combat the culture war idiots in the comments below.
This is a fine piece of philosophical writing (that's the ivory-tower elitist in me talking, apparently). It's also a perfectly defensible political treatise (that's the- what is it now?- authoritarian commie scum in me).
This is a fine piece of philosophical writing (that's the ivory-tower elitist in me talking, apparently). It's also a perfectly defensible political treatise (that's the- what is it now?- authoritarian commie scum in me).
April 25, 2024
Herbert Marcuse's essay "Repressive Tolerance" is a dense and intricate outline of his thoughts on the concept of tolerance in society. In his convoluted prose, Marcuse argues that the traditional notion of tolerance perpetuates the status quo by allowing oppressive ideologies to flourish under the guise of freedom of speech. He posits that true freedom requires the suppression of intolerant ideas in order to create space for the marginalized. Who gets to decide which viewpoints are worthy of amplification and which ones need to be suppressed? "Intellectuals" like him, of course.
Marcuse's arguments intersect with Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, albeit in a disastrous manner. While Popper famously asserted that unlimited tolerance inevitably leads to the destruction of tolerance itself, Marcuse expands on this idea by taking the destruction of tolerance into his own hands. In this essay he is advocating for the selective repression of "intolerant viewpoints" to preserve "genuine tolerance" resulting in supposedly desirable equity but inevitably succumbing to the pitfalls of dogmatism and authoritarianism.
Furthermore, Marcuse's overly complicated language, pseudo-sophisticated ramblings and abstract writing style make this text hardly readable, rendering it more of a symbol open for interpretation than a practical guide for social change. Instead of fostering understanding and dialogue, these arguments are wielded as weapons by some on the left to perpetuate echo chambers, justify censorship, shut down dissent and enforce ideological conformity.
Marcuse's arguments intersect with Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, albeit in a disastrous manner. While Popper famously asserted that unlimited tolerance inevitably leads to the destruction of tolerance itself, Marcuse expands on this idea by taking the destruction of tolerance into his own hands. In this essay he is advocating for the selective repression of "intolerant viewpoints" to preserve "genuine tolerance" resulting in supposedly desirable equity but inevitably succumbing to the pitfalls of dogmatism and authoritarianism.
Furthermore, Marcuse's overly complicated language, pseudo-sophisticated ramblings and abstract writing style make this text hardly readable, rendering it more of a symbol open for interpretation than a practical guide for social change. Instead of fostering understanding and dialogue, these arguments are wielded as weapons by some on the left to perpetuate echo chambers, justify censorship, shut down dissent and enforce ideological conformity.
February 27, 2022
Joe Bloggs: "Ah, life is good!"
Marcuse: "NO IT ISN'T! YOUR LIFE IS TERRIBLE! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET! YOU'RE NOT DOING FREEDOM PROPERLY! LISTEN TO ME AND LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO LIVE A SUPERIOR POLITICAL EXISTENCE!"
Joe Bloggs: "I just wanted to grill, dude."
Marcuse: "OPPRESSIVE, RIGHT-WING BIGOT!"
This has been something I've been meaning to read for a month or two now, because it kept coming up in discussions by various online content creators I follow. To sum it up in one simple sentence, the entire take-away from this piece is:
It's okay when we (the left) do it.
Yes really. It's a weirdly bat-crap insane ramble, written by a guy who really wants to be able to rationalise any and all amounts of violence, destruction and disruption done against anyone to the right of Mao - and who also seems to have recently learned the meaning of 'vitiate' from his 'Word Of The Day' calendar, lol.
If you want to know why the current political climate sees the dirty scam merchants BLM get away with rioting, burning, harassment, assault and causing $2billion of damage to property...while a group of truckers who didn't do anything like that, got tear-gassed, arrested and trampled on by horses, it's all in this essay. It's chock full of enlightening quotes (pretty much every line is a damning indictment of everything insane about the left today, but I can't quote all of them) such as:
"If democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War."
Okay, but nobody mention the Soviet gulags though, eh?
"The only authentic alternative and negation of dictatorship (with respect to this question) would be a society in which ‘the people’ have become autonomous individuals, freed from the repressive requirements of a struggle for existence in the interest of domination, and as such human beings choosing their government and determining their life. Such a society does not yet exist anywhere."
Because true communism has never been tried bro, amirite?
"Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right...To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media."
Everyone who isn't an awakened radical leftist is wrong, everyone on the right needs to be censored and that's just fine because the media is already lying to everyone anyway. So instead of just offering up the truth, trying to show the hypocrisy, what you really need is for this maniac and his sycophants to dole out the right kind of censorship to you, to disable your 'false consciousness'.
"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."
And there you have it. Welcome to the world we currently live in. Two legs bad, four legs good. And yes, that was an intentional nod to Orwell, because Marcuse seems to get a little confused about the messaging in George's works, probably because he wanted to add some kind of validity to his ranting.
"I shall presently discuss the question as to who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and repressive, human and inhuman teachings and practices; I have already suggested that this distinction is not a matter of value-preference but of rational criteria."
Yeah, of course that means him, his neo-Marxist cronies & those with an awakened 'Critical Consciousness'. Funny that. The fact that he suggests taking politics away from the regular people who haven't been to university, and giving it to the intellectuals - the 'intelligentsia' - is also kind of ironic, given that doing that put us in the ridiculous position we're having to deal with today. Long march through the institutions y'all. Yikes.
I did give it three stars though. Why? Well because whilst it might be a total exercise in mental-gymnastics designed to vindicate anyone on the left who goes out and commits acts of violence, it also serves as a very useful playbook for anyone not currently convinced of the current prevailed leftist narratives, that lays out not just the tactics being used against anyone who doesn't comply, but the reasoning dreamt up to support it.
Anyway, I could write loads about this because it's just so brilliantly revealing, despicably transparent and chillingly evil, but you get the picture. Go read it. Read it, give it to other people to read, compare it to what's going on around us now and start speaking out about the craziness being perpetuated. In the words of James Lindsay:
"It's the truth that will set you free. Seeing the asymmetry will set you free. Not the biased slanting in the opposite direction."
If we were going with Marcuse's instructions here - teaching/presenting both sides, but promoting more of the "contradictions" - we'd not only be teaching creationism in the classroom, but giving it more attention than anything else on the science curriculum. Woke atheists would love that.
But then what do I know? I never even went to university. In Marcuse's opinion, that would mean I should have less of an opportunity to vote than someone with a degree in 'Queer Black Trans Grievance Studies'.
Be careful what you wish for folks...or rather be careful what you fall for.
Marcuse: "NO IT ISN'T! YOUR LIFE IS TERRIBLE! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET! YOU'RE NOT DOING FREEDOM PROPERLY! LISTEN TO ME AND LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO LIVE A SUPERIOR POLITICAL EXISTENCE!"
Joe Bloggs: "I just wanted to grill, dude."
Marcuse: "OPPRESSIVE, RIGHT-WING BIGOT!"
This has been something I've been meaning to read for a month or two now, because it kept coming up in discussions by various online content creators I follow. To sum it up in one simple sentence, the entire take-away from this piece is:
It's okay when we (the left) do it.
Yes really. It's a weirdly bat-crap insane ramble, written by a guy who really wants to be able to rationalise any and all amounts of violence, destruction and disruption done against anyone to the right of Mao - and who also seems to have recently learned the meaning of 'vitiate' from his 'Word Of The Day' calendar, lol.
If you want to know why the current political climate sees the dirty scam merchants BLM get away with rioting, burning, harassment, assault and causing $2billion of damage to property...while a group of truckers who didn't do anything like that, got tear-gassed, arrested and trampled on by horses, it's all in this essay. It's chock full of enlightening quotes (pretty much every line is a damning indictment of everything insane about the left today, but I can't quote all of them) such as:
"If democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War."
Okay, but nobody mention the Soviet gulags though, eh?
"The only authentic alternative and negation of dictatorship (with respect to this question) would be a society in which ‘the people’ have become autonomous individuals, freed from the repressive requirements of a struggle for existence in the interest of domination, and as such human beings choosing their government and determining their life. Such a society does not yet exist anywhere."
Because true communism has never been tried bro, amirite?
"Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right...To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media."
Everyone who isn't an awakened radical leftist is wrong, everyone on the right needs to be censored and that's just fine because the media is already lying to everyone anyway. So instead of just offering up the truth, trying to show the hypocrisy, what you really need is for this maniac and his sycophants to dole out the right kind of censorship to you, to disable your 'false consciousness'.
"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."
And there you have it. Welcome to the world we currently live in. Two legs bad, four legs good. And yes, that was an intentional nod to Orwell, because Marcuse seems to get a little confused about the messaging in George's works, probably because he wanted to add some kind of validity to his ranting.
"I shall presently discuss the question as to who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and repressive, human and inhuman teachings and practices; I have already suggested that this distinction is not a matter of value-preference but of rational criteria."
Yeah, of course that means him, his neo-Marxist cronies & those with an awakened 'Critical Consciousness'. Funny that. The fact that he suggests taking politics away from the regular people who haven't been to university, and giving it to the intellectuals - the 'intelligentsia' - is also kind of ironic, given that doing that put us in the ridiculous position we're having to deal with today. Long march through the institutions y'all. Yikes.
I did give it three stars though. Why? Well because whilst it might be a total exercise in mental-gymnastics designed to vindicate anyone on the left who goes out and commits acts of violence, it also serves as a very useful playbook for anyone not currently convinced of the current prevailed leftist narratives, that lays out not just the tactics being used against anyone who doesn't comply, but the reasoning dreamt up to support it.
Anyway, I could write loads about this because it's just so brilliantly revealing, despicably transparent and chillingly evil, but you get the picture. Go read it. Read it, give it to other people to read, compare it to what's going on around us now and start speaking out about the craziness being perpetuated. In the words of James Lindsay:
"It's the truth that will set you free. Seeing the asymmetry will set you free. Not the biased slanting in the opposite direction."
If we were going with Marcuse's instructions here - teaching/presenting both sides, but promoting more of the "contradictions" - we'd not only be teaching creationism in the classroom, but giving it more attention than anything else on the science curriculum. Woke atheists would love that.
But then what do I know? I never even went to university. In Marcuse's opinion, that would mean I should have less of an opportunity to vote than someone with a degree in 'Queer Black Trans Grievance Studies'.
Be careful what you wish for folks...or rather be careful what you fall for.
August 27, 2020
Einer der besseren Texte zum Thema Toleranz, den es sich zu lesen lohnt. Man sollte sich von der Bewertung nicht abschrecken lassen, da Marcuse hiermit zu Recht die Gefühle einiger rectsextremer Schneeflocken triggert.
Read
May 9, 2019Tolerance for me, but not for thee.
June 19, 2023
A manifesto for suppressing anything deemed to be Right-wing in the name of tolerance.
Read
November 3, 2024Am I allowed to log this it’s technically an essay…but also it’s like 40 pages and I read it all so I’m going to …anyway for class
Read
October 7, 2021James Lindsay has an excellent audio commentary on this at New Discourses.
June 25, 2020
Given the times that we are in, this is a very relevant read. It challenges the ideas that have on their own assumed the status of the sacrosanct. The unquestioned ideas of Tolerance and Democracy.
This form tolerance (both in its passive and active state) is abstract and non partisan in nature and therefore it demands us to be tolerant with the status -quo which in itself is hegemonic in nature. This tolerance instead of challenging the system works in its favour and is in sync with the idea of Democracy which even though appears to guarantee one’s individual opinion, is actually working in insidious ways, against it.
However, Marcuse extends a vague alternative to Democracy wherein he argues that human beings with mature faculties should ideally be the political leaders. With ‘mature faculties’, he keeps it vague as it opens itself to varying interpretations and also appears to be in favour of an ‘elite dictatorship.’
He challenges the idea of ‘public opinion’ which seems more to cater to a vested interest of a majority than to pure rational opinions of individuals.
While we see no fruitful alternatives of Democracy in the near future, questioning its sanctity in itself is refreshing. Perhaps, the mere question could lead to better solutions.
Recommended!
This form tolerance (both in its passive and active state) is abstract and non partisan in nature and therefore it demands us to be tolerant with the status -quo which in itself is hegemonic in nature. This tolerance instead of challenging the system works in its favour and is in sync with the idea of Democracy which even though appears to guarantee one’s individual opinion, is actually working in insidious ways, against it.
However, Marcuse extends a vague alternative to Democracy wherein he argues that human beings with mature faculties should ideally be the political leaders. With ‘mature faculties’, he keeps it vague as it opens itself to varying interpretations and also appears to be in favour of an ‘elite dictatorship.’
He challenges the idea of ‘public opinion’ which seems more to cater to a vested interest of a majority than to pure rational opinions of individuals.
While we see no fruitful alternatives of Democracy in the near future, questioning its sanctity in itself is refreshing. Perhaps, the mere question could lead to better solutions.
Recommended!
December 27, 2024
This seems like a fairly misunderstood text, but maybe not completely. Marcuse makes a lot of insightful points on the nature of tolerance, but I find his solutions to these issues to be largely lacking (and to an extent unclear). I reject the idea that this is some tyrannical text which aspires to subjugate all conservatives to having limited civil rights. But I also think it is understandable why some have interpreted it to be that, because Marcuse doesn’t exactly fully clarify how his vision of discriminatory tolerance would play out.
Does he want the government to deploy restrictions or is he just demanding social resistance from liberals and the left? He of course speaks on the left needing more in order to get on an equal playing field, and “restraining the liberty of the Right,” but again it is unclear if he means legislatively or through social action. He mentions his ideal government being some sort of educated led democracy, which then brings in another question: if he is speaking legislatively is he trusting the current political institutions to do it or would he only find it acceptable if this educated government does it?
Regardless, this is a very interesting text. Marcuse is very insightful when discussing issues, but less so when he is discussing solutions.
Does he want the government to deploy restrictions or is he just demanding social resistance from liberals and the left? He of course speaks on the left needing more in order to get on an equal playing field, and “restraining the liberty of the Right,” but again it is unclear if he means legislatively or through social action. He mentions his ideal government being some sort of educated led democracy, which then brings in another question: if he is speaking legislatively is he trusting the current political institutions to do it or would he only find it acceptable if this educated government does it?
Regardless, this is a very interesting text. Marcuse is very insightful when discussing issues, but less so when he is discussing solutions.
February 6, 2021
Marcuse gives us a good insight into his thought process and the ideas that surround tolerance of ideas in society in the pursuit of an elusive utopia. All that being said, it’s disgusting rhetoric based off of ideologies rooted in Hegel and Marxism. It’s an incredibly important and relevant read in today’s political and societal climate that everyone should read though.
December 11, 2021
To start: I think the political right is off their rocker to think this is the leftist book of Proverbs. But since it has gotten so much press, I have it a read.
It is insightful in showing how neutrality cannot really exist, and how it reflects the status quo. I agree with him on that. I share all his concerns about advertising and news media. That's the best I can say for this essay. Otherwise, it makes me embarrassed to be on the left. Some key issues I find with Marcuse's ideas here:
While tolerance does give favor to those with power, who else but those with the most power of all could ever get away with intolerance? The very ability to sustain intolerance is proof that you are indeed the current biggest limiting factor of human freedom as the person with way too much power already. There is no way one could ever enforce this specific tolerance without already having too perverse an amount of power to be expressing it over others. But Marcuse would say it is not as much about power itself as it is about promoting things that are good for humans rather than destructive. But can having that much power over people to begin with be good for them when the whole goal is to destroy other interests having said power? Anyway, does Marcuse really believe these nontolerated ideas will vanish?
Further, tolerance, despite its usefulness to the status quo is extremely uncommon in history, and if there has been any historical progress at all, it has come because of it. Intolerance has always been par for the course, and I cannot think, and Marcuse admits that he cannot either, think of a single society in which this ever worked for the best. Am i to believe that all those leaders were just too dumb and never thought they were doing what was best for everyone? And to his credit, Marcuse admits that democratic tolerance is still better than dictatorial censorship, but his belief that we can rationally and "objectively" rise above those two and into a responsible censorship is painfully foolish. If there is one thing history makes certain, it is that PEOPLE TRY TO STAY IN POWER. It doesn't matter how pure their initial intentions are or how oppressed they have been. Once they have power, they simply cannot be trusted to wield it fairly and there is no reason to think they will, as they never have in the past. As sad as it is, it is probably even more likely that a previously oppressed class will abuse the power, because it took such an oppositionally defiant stance to gain the power, rendering its new users unable to wield it without fighting someone. And of course, those newly in power after rising from the worst circumstances are naturally the most scared of losing it. This is not conservative or regressive philosophy, it is just a fact of human psychology.
In adding to this, the issue with suppressed tolerance is that it encourages those doing the deciding to think of themselves as less fallible than those they cease to tolerate, opening huge schisms in their own ideological consistency. Suddenly, as is nearly always the case with those doing the shushing, their own sacred cow ideas are beyond reproach, no matter how ridiculous or self-contradictory. All of Marcuse's issues boil down to this ridiculous claim that there are such obvious objective truths to be gleaned, regarding what is constructive for humanity and what is destructive, and that the left is capable of determining and enforcing them responsibly. This borders on delusional parody.
The implication that intolerance from the inhumane institutional powers always serves those in power is a slippery one. It is not entirely untrue. In most cases I would say it is true, but can be very deceptive. For instance, one will undoubtedly receive more public media scrutiny for saying a racial joke about a minority than about a white person. This unequal tolerance, which does reflect a real inequality between whites and minorities, is being upheld by power establishments that do not care at all about minorities, but are simply trying to make money off the powerful demographic: white liberals that fancy themselves progressive, who will celebrate such a reaction as real progress. So while Marcuse's point stands, it is not always the case that tolerance tolerates criticism of the less powerful more. They just tolerate what makes them money, or what gets them votes, etc. Really though, Marcuse's insight, at its core, is a good one here, because in a roundabout way, the establishment is protecting the most powerful class with its decisions on tolerance; but at this point, I'm afraid my fellow college educated, young, affluent, liberals do not realize, or refuse to accept, that they are the most powerful demographic as far as established powers are concerned.
Now perhaps one could argue, as I know some do, and possibly correctly, that Marcuse isn't calling for literal state-institution censorship, in which case, he is just saying to be rational about what you even give time and thought to. But how can you even arrive at such certainty about what is good and constructive for humans without interacting with the bad ideas? Too much to say, but do not want to continue this rant.
It is insightful in showing how neutrality cannot really exist, and how it reflects the status quo. I agree with him on that. I share all his concerns about advertising and news media. That's the best I can say for this essay. Otherwise, it makes me embarrassed to be on the left. Some key issues I find with Marcuse's ideas here:
While tolerance does give favor to those with power, who else but those with the most power of all could ever get away with intolerance? The very ability to sustain intolerance is proof that you are indeed the current biggest limiting factor of human freedom as the person with way too much power already. There is no way one could ever enforce this specific tolerance without already having too perverse an amount of power to be expressing it over others. But Marcuse would say it is not as much about power itself as it is about promoting things that are good for humans rather than destructive. But can having that much power over people to begin with be good for them when the whole goal is to destroy other interests having said power? Anyway, does Marcuse really believe these nontolerated ideas will vanish?
Further, tolerance, despite its usefulness to the status quo is extremely uncommon in history, and if there has been any historical progress at all, it has come because of it. Intolerance has always been par for the course, and I cannot think, and Marcuse admits that he cannot either, think of a single society in which this ever worked for the best. Am i to believe that all those leaders were just too dumb and never thought they were doing what was best for everyone? And to his credit, Marcuse admits that democratic tolerance is still better than dictatorial censorship, but his belief that we can rationally and "objectively" rise above those two and into a responsible censorship is painfully foolish. If there is one thing history makes certain, it is that PEOPLE TRY TO STAY IN POWER. It doesn't matter how pure their initial intentions are or how oppressed they have been. Once they have power, they simply cannot be trusted to wield it fairly and there is no reason to think they will, as they never have in the past. As sad as it is, it is probably even more likely that a previously oppressed class will abuse the power, because it took such an oppositionally defiant stance to gain the power, rendering its new users unable to wield it without fighting someone. And of course, those newly in power after rising from the worst circumstances are naturally the most scared of losing it. This is not conservative or regressive philosophy, it is just a fact of human psychology.
In adding to this, the issue with suppressed tolerance is that it encourages those doing the deciding to think of themselves as less fallible than those they cease to tolerate, opening huge schisms in their own ideological consistency. Suddenly, as is nearly always the case with those doing the shushing, their own sacred cow ideas are beyond reproach, no matter how ridiculous or self-contradictory. All of Marcuse's issues boil down to this ridiculous claim that there are such obvious objective truths to be gleaned, regarding what is constructive for humanity and what is destructive, and that the left is capable of determining and enforcing them responsibly. This borders on delusional parody.
The implication that intolerance from the inhumane institutional powers always serves those in power is a slippery one. It is not entirely untrue. In most cases I would say it is true, but can be very deceptive. For instance, one will undoubtedly receive more public media scrutiny for saying a racial joke about a minority than about a white person. This unequal tolerance, which does reflect a real inequality between whites and minorities, is being upheld by power establishments that do not care at all about minorities, but are simply trying to make money off the powerful demographic: white liberals that fancy themselves progressive, who will celebrate such a reaction as real progress. So while Marcuse's point stands, it is not always the case that tolerance tolerates criticism of the less powerful more. They just tolerate what makes them money, or what gets them votes, etc. Really though, Marcuse's insight, at its core, is a good one here, because in a roundabout way, the establishment is protecting the most powerful class with its decisions on tolerance; but at this point, I'm afraid my fellow college educated, young, affluent, liberals do not realize, or refuse to accept, that they are the most powerful demographic as far as established powers are concerned.
Now perhaps one could argue, as I know some do, and possibly correctly, that Marcuse isn't calling for literal state-institution censorship, in which case, he is just saying to be rational about what you even give time and thought to. But how can you even arrive at such certainty about what is good and constructive for humans without interacting with the bad ideas? Too much to say, but do not want to continue this rant.
June 28, 2020
just an essay but good food for thought
August 17, 2019
Mr Marcuse was an influential social theorist in the Frankfurt School. In this essay, he argues that, in order to liberate all oppressed groups from "the Establishment" or "the Right or Center," oppressed peoples must exercise a militant kind of "repressive tolerance" so that they might overthrow what is essentially the ideologically orthodox and bourgeois notion of tolerance that is apparently disseminated by all of our cultural and educational institutions, which has been passed down from the liberalist tradition, and only serves to enforce assorted inequalities and inhibit "the negation of the negation" (also known as progress). Basically, advocate incessantly for tolerance, but only for those who think like you and are willing to support your particular agenda (communism in the case of Mr Marcuse) -- do not entertain or give a voice to those who attempt to inhibit the "democratic process" and the "general will" by supporting aspects of "the Establishment."
A very disturbing notion for many people, however, the principles seem to have been applied quit well, and rendered themselves politically very effective. "Tolerance" is more or less considered a categorical good in our own day, even though it often means "tolerance for the things I want to be tolerated, but not for the things you want;" "the Left" more or less dominates or "owns" this term, something which conferred them quite a great benefit in the public mind.
In the postscript Marcuse summarizes quite well:
"Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for ‘the other side’, I maintain that there are issues where either there is no ‘other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense, or where ‘the other side’ is demonstrably ‘regressive’ and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy... Part of this struggle is the fight against an ideology of tolerance which, in reality, favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination. For this struggle, I proposed the practice of discriminating tolerance. To be sure, this practice already presupposes the radical goal which it seeks to achieve. I committed this petitio principii in order to combat the pernicious ideology that tolerance is already institutionalized in this society. The tolerance which is the life element, the token of a free society, will never be the gift of the powers that be; it can, under the prevailing conditions of tyranny by the majority, only be won in the sustained effort of radical minorities, willing to break this tyranny and to work for the emergence of a free and sovereign majority - minorities intolerant, militantly intolerant and disobedient to the rules of behavior which tolerate destruction and suppression."
A very disturbing notion for many people, however, the principles seem to have been applied quit well, and rendered themselves politically very effective. "Tolerance" is more or less considered a categorical good in our own day, even though it often means "tolerance for the things I want to be tolerated, but not for the things you want;" "the Left" more or less dominates or "owns" this term, something which conferred them quite a great benefit in the public mind.
In the postscript Marcuse summarizes quite well:
"Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for ‘the other side’, I maintain that there are issues where either there is no ‘other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense, or where ‘the other side’ is demonstrably ‘regressive’ and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy... Part of this struggle is the fight against an ideology of tolerance which, in reality, favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination. For this struggle, I proposed the practice of discriminating tolerance. To be sure, this practice already presupposes the radical goal which it seeks to achieve. I committed this petitio principii in order to combat the pernicious ideology that tolerance is already institutionalized in this society. The tolerance which is the life element, the token of a free society, will never be the gift of the powers that be; it can, under the prevailing conditions of tyranny by the majority, only be won in the sustained effort of radical minorities, willing to break this tyranny and to work for the emergence of a free and sovereign majority - minorities intolerant, militantly intolerant and disobedient to the rules of behavior which tolerate destruction and suppression."
November 4, 2022
Fishhook theory 101:
- Ένα καθεστώς καθαρής ανοχής στην πραγματικότητα ευνοεί το status quo, αφού οι καταπιεστικές της εκφάνσεις επιβάλλονται στα θύματά της ως κάτι το φυσιολογικό. Σωστά.
- Για να επιτευχθεί ουσιώδης κοινωνικοπολιτική αλλαγή, είναι απαραίτητη η διάκριση ανάμεσα στις προοδευτικές και τις αντιδραστικές ιδεολογίες. Yes.
- Ως εκ τούτου, τα προοδευτικά κινήματα (της Αριστεράς) πρέπει να ευνοούνται, ενώ τα αντιδραστικά (της Δεξιάς) να καταστέλλονται, εφόσον τα τελευταία διαφημίζονται μεροληπτικά από το υπάρχον καθεστώς και λειτουργούν ως default ρύθμιση για την απολιτίκ πλειονότητα. Neither left or right = right, γκέγκε; Επίσης, δεν πρόκειται να σας πω για παλαιές και νέες Αριστερές και τις κολοσσιαίες διαφορές μεταξύ τους ή για τις πιθανότητες αλληλοσφάγματός τους ως προς αυτό το θέμα, γενικά μιλάμε. Μμ, οκ.
- Η καταστολή αυτή μπορεί πρέπει φυσικά να λάβει βίαιη μορφή, γιατί, ντάξει τώρα, δεν είμαστε και τίποτα φλώροι. Τι και αν τα μη βίαια κινήματα έχουν αποδειχθεί πιο πετυχημένα και βιώσιμα ιστορικά, εμείς γουστάρουμε επανάσταση βρε παιδί μου - ως θεωρητικοί σύμβουλοι βεβαίως βεβαίως.
- Περαιτέρω, η έλλειψη ανοχής δεν πρέπει να περιοριστεί μόνο στις αντιδραστικές πράξεις καθαυτές αλλά να επεκταθεί και στις λέξεις, τις γνώμες, ακόμα και τις σκέψεις. Και αυτό γιατί η ελευθερία σκέψης σε ένα περιβάλλον δημοκρατικής ουδετερότητας οδηγεί στην επικράτηση πειθήνιων κομφορμιστών, επομένως το να κάνουμε και λίγη προπαγάνδα ή λογοκρισία δεν βλάπτει. Μόνο έτσι χτυπάμε το κακό στη ρίζα, θέτοντας, με την προσωρινή μας αντιδημοκρατική συμπεριφορά, τις βάσεις για μία αληθινά ανεκτική κοινωνία. Καλή ιδέα Πλάτωνα αφεντικό, με αυτό τον τρόπο σίγουρα θα ελαττωθούν τα αντιδραστικά και βίαια κινήματα. Έτσι είναι, δεν είναι έτσι;
- Η δυνατότητα διάκρισης μεταξύ προοδευτισμού και αντιδραστικότητας ανήκει σε όσους κατέχουν τον ΛΟΓΟ (με την έννοια του Mill)
- Ποιος κατέχει τον ΛΟΓΟ σε αυτή την απολιτίκ κοινότητα που βρίθει ψευδών συνειδήσεων; 'Ένας πολύ μικρός αριθμός πεφωτισμένων ανθρώπων, και όχι απαραιτήτως οι κοινοβουλευτικοί εκπρόσωποι.' Ίσως κάποιοι δευτεροκλασάτοι φιλόσοφοι/κοινωνιολόγοι που αρχίζουν από M και τελειώνουν σε Use...
Το εν λόγω δοκίμιο ανήκει στις απαρχές της ολοκληρωτικής μεταμοντέρνας σκέψης, ένα κραυγαλέο πισωγύρισμα από τον υλιστή Μαρξ στον ουσιοκράτη Χέγκελ που δυστυχώς αποτέλεσε βασικό (και ευτυχώς, όχι ομόφωνα αποδεκτό) πυλώνα της Νέας Αριστεράς. Ορμώμενος από μερικά εύλογα και άκρως ενδιαφέροντα ζητήματα που έχουν αναλυθεί στο παρελθόν από ομοϊδεάτες και μη (ελευθερία έκφρασης, δικαίωμα αντίστασης με βίαια μέσα, ειδικά για τις μειονότητες, ανάγκη για θεσμική αναβάθμιση και ουσιαστικότερη δη��οκρατία κλπ.), ο Μαρκούζε τα κάνει κυριολεκτικά μαντάρα, μεταθέτοντας εξ ολοκλήρου τη συζήτηση από το πεδίο της δράσης στο πεδίο των ιδεών, με τις θέσεις του υπέρ της πεφωτισμένης ιντελιγκέντσιας ως ανώτερης πολιτικής κάστας να φαίνονται τουλάχιστον αλαζονικές και γελοίες - για να μη πω φασιστικές.
Ο Μαρκούζε είναι το όπιο του κάθε ξιπασμένου ψευτοδιανοούμενου, και δεν μετανιώνω ούτε δευτερόλεπτο που τον σκουπίδιασα στην διπλωματική μου <3.
- Ένα καθεστώς καθαρής ανοχής στην πραγματικότητα ευνοεί το status quo, αφού οι καταπιεστικές της εκφάνσεις επιβάλλονται στα θύματά της ως κάτι το φυσιολογικό. Σωστά.
- Για να επιτευχθεί ουσιώδης κοινωνικοπολιτική αλλαγή, είναι απαραίτητη η διάκριση ανάμεσα στις προοδευτικές και τις αντιδραστικές ιδεολογίες. Yes.
- Ως εκ τούτου, τα προοδευτικά κινήματα (της Αριστεράς) πρέπει να ευνοούνται, ενώ τα αντιδραστικά (της Δεξιάς) να καταστέλλονται, εφόσον τα τελευταία διαφημίζονται μεροληπτικά από το υπάρχον καθεστώς και λειτουργούν ως default ρύθμιση για την απολιτίκ πλειονότητα. Neither left or right = right, γκέγκε; Επίσης, δεν πρόκειται να σας πω για παλαιές και νέες Αριστερές και τις κολοσσιαίες διαφορές μεταξύ τους ή για τις πιθανότητες αλληλοσφάγματός τους ως προς αυτό το θέμα, γενικά μιλάμε. Μμ, οκ.
- Η καταστολή αυτή
- Περαιτέρω, η έλλειψη ανοχής δεν πρέπει να περιοριστεί μόνο στις αντιδραστικές πράξεις καθαυτές αλλά να επεκταθεί και στις λέξεις, τις γνώμες, ακόμα και τις σκέψεις. Και αυτό γιατί η ελευθερία σκέψης σε ένα περιβάλλον δημοκρατικής ουδετερότητας οδηγεί στην επικράτηση πειθήνιων κομφορμιστών, επομένως το να κάνουμε και λίγη προπαγάνδα ή λογοκρισία δεν βλάπτει. Μόνο έτσι χτυπάμε το κακό στη ρίζα, θέτοντας, με την προσωρινή μας αντιδημοκρατική συμπεριφορά, τις βάσεις για μία αληθινά ανεκτική κοινωνία. Καλή ιδέα
- Η δυνατότητα διάκρισης μεταξύ προοδευτισμού και αντιδραστικότητας ανήκει σε όσους κατέχουν τον ΛΟΓΟ (με την έννοια του Mill)
- Ποιος κατέχει τον ΛΟΓΟ σε αυτή την απολιτίκ κοινότητα που βρίθει ψευδών συνειδήσεων; 'Ένας πολύ μικρός αριθμός πεφωτισμένων ανθρώπων, και όχι απαραιτήτως οι κοινοβουλευτικοί εκπρόσωποι.' Ίσως κάποιοι δευτεροκλασάτοι φιλόσοφοι/κοινωνιολόγοι που αρχίζουν από M και τελειώνουν σε Use...
Το εν λόγω δοκίμιο ανήκει στις απαρχές της ολοκληρωτικής μεταμοντέρνας σκέψης, ένα κραυγαλέο πισωγύρισμα από τον υλιστή Μαρξ στον ουσιοκράτη Χέγκελ που δυστυχώς αποτέλεσε βασικό (και ευτυχώς, όχι ομόφωνα αποδεκτό) πυλώνα της Νέας Αριστεράς. Ορμώμενος από μερικά εύλογα και άκρως ενδιαφέροντα ζητήματα που έχουν αναλυθεί στο παρελθόν από ομοϊδεάτες και μη (ελευθερία έκφρασης, δικαίωμα αντίστασης με βίαια μέσα, ειδικά για τις μειονότητες, ανάγκη για θεσμική αναβάθμιση και ουσιαστικότερη δη��οκρατία κλπ.), ο Μαρκούζε τα κάνει κυριολεκτικά μαντάρα, μεταθέτοντας εξ ολοκλήρου τη συζήτηση από το πεδίο της δράσης στο πεδίο των ιδεών, με τις θέσεις του υπέρ της πεφωτισμένης ιντελιγκέντσιας ως ανώτερης πολιτικής κάστας να φαίνονται τουλάχιστον αλαζονικές και γελοίες - για να μη πω φασιστικές.
Ο Μαρκούζε είναι το όπιο του κάθε ξιπασμένου ψευτοδιανοούμενου, και δεν μετανιώνω ούτε δευτερόλεπτο που τον σκουπίδιασα στην διπλωματική μου <3.
September 17, 2025
Great read, basically makes the same point as Popper does. “Tolerance” can become self-defeating if it empowers forces that would destroy the very conditions for tolerance. Both conclude that tolerance can’t be indiscriminate.
Unlike Popper though, Marcuse is willing to point to all the ways liberal capitalism itself is also complicit in domination and how “Neutral” tolerance ends up amplifying the dominant voices.
This work is needed now more than ever with the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
As Marcuse says: "in the juxtaposition of gorgeous ads with unmitigated horrors, in the introduction and interruption of the broadcasting of facts by overwhelming commercials. The
result is a neutralization of opposites, a neutralization, however, which takes place on the firm grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance and within a preformed mentality. When a magazine prints side by side a negative and a positive report on the FBI, it fulfills honestly the requirements of objectivity: however, the chances are that the positive wins because the image of the institution is deeply engraved in the mind of the people. Or, if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses to describe the stockmarket or the weather, or with the same great emotion with which he says his commercials, then such objectivity is spurious - more, it offends against humanity and truth by being calm where one should be enraged, by refraining from accusation where accusation is in the facts themselves. The tolerance expressed in such impartiality serves to minimize or even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. If objectivity has anything to do with truth, and if truth is more than a matter of logic and science, then this kind of objectivity is false, and this kind of tolerance inhuman."
"Tolerance is an end in itself"
"Freedom is still to be created even for the freest of the existing societies"
Unlike Popper though, Marcuse is willing to point to all the ways liberal capitalism itself is also complicit in domination and how “Neutral” tolerance ends up amplifying the dominant voices.
This work is needed now more than ever with the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
As Marcuse says: "in the juxtaposition of gorgeous ads with unmitigated horrors, in the introduction and interruption of the broadcasting of facts by overwhelming commercials. The
result is a neutralization of opposites, a neutralization, however, which takes place on the firm grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance and within a preformed mentality. When a magazine prints side by side a negative and a positive report on the FBI, it fulfills honestly the requirements of objectivity: however, the chances are that the positive wins because the image of the institution is deeply engraved in the mind of the people. Or, if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses to describe the stockmarket or the weather, or with the same great emotion with which he says his commercials, then such objectivity is spurious - more, it offends against humanity and truth by being calm where one should be enraged, by refraining from accusation where accusation is in the facts themselves. The tolerance expressed in such impartiality serves to minimize or even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. If objectivity has anything to do with truth, and if truth is more than a matter of logic and science, then this kind of objectivity is false, and this kind of tolerance inhuman."
"Tolerance is an end in itself"
"Freedom is still to be created even for the freest of the existing societies"
May 31, 2024
Genuinely one of the best essays I have ever read. The metaphor about art made Marcuse's argument seem so effortless. Tolerance of different artistic styles and aims does not imply that all art is fundamentally equal or that one must approach art with a sense of impartial neutrality, that is how you end up with a whole lot of very vapid art (think modern Hollywood movies). The same is true of politics. Genuine intellectuals and other "autonomous" individuals should not consider fundamentally anti-egalitarian political projects to be a valid use of political freedoms guaranteed only by the (at least in theory egalitarian) liberal order.
January 28, 2023
Completely unsurprising. "Free speech is good because it gets to Truth, however that assumes that the people listening and speaking are in a position to contribute to this quest. In America people are propagandized to reject real Truths about class/race/gender etc. Thus to get real free speech we need to censor those who would put forward reactionary beliefs and support the dissemination of progressive material". All evidence for a propaganda tilt in a certain direction is the fact that the American people don't agree with him.
February 20, 2021
The three stars are really an average: in reality it's 1 (or -1000, if that were possible) star for the disgusting content with matching style, 5 - because it's a bloody playbook for the SJW mob. You read it (more like: suffer your way through this rhetorical masturbation snuff) and all of a sudden - presto! the woke insanity turns from confusing to a logical conclusion of the ideas proposed by Marcuse.
February 28, 2021
Started reading Plato's Republic and got drawn into Karl Popper, Herbert Marcuse, James Lindsay, Wittgenstein and all the other movements that seems to have been affected or reacted to Socrates and Plato. Whew.
I suppose this piece, which I daresay is unknown by most of today's public has the potential to be dynamite, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say Marcuse is the daddy of woke and its siblings. That being said, I see why many regard it as important from both sides of the equation.
I suppose this piece, which I daresay is unknown by most of today's public has the potential to be dynamite, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say Marcuse is the daddy of woke and its siblings. That being said, I see why many regard it as important from both sides of the equation.
March 13, 2024
This essay is a sobering reminder that Marxists are willing to enforce any means necessary to get to their totalitarian ideas.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews