What do you think?
Rate this book
Vers La Libération: Au Delà De L'homme Unidimensionnel
Rayon : Philosophie Editeur : Les éditions de Minuit Date de parution : 1969 Description : In-8, 120 pages, broché, occasion, très bon état. Envois quotidiens du mardi au samedi. Les commandes sont adressées sous enveloppes bulles. Photos supplémentaires de l'ouvrage sur simple demande. Réponses aux questions dans les 12h00. Librairie Le Piano-Livre. Merci. Référence catalogue X13039. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks
120 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
37 people are currently reading
1608 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Marcuse
232 books633 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 67 reviews
July 18, 2015
It's odd to read this now - it's been on my shelf for over 20 years - because so many of the ideas expressed here by Marcuse in 1969 are being widely discussed and learned afresh by a new generation of activists, albeit shorn of the Freudian twist that the Frankfurt School gave to Marx. Every generation, it would seem, has to experience its own disillusionment and generate its own Marcuses/Castoriadises/Milletts. This is both reassuring, in that each generation appears to succeed in doing so, and a source of diappointment, in that it means that building on the work of previous generations is achieved only slowly. But then, who is going to read Marcuse if they think he's an irrelevant old fart who doesn't speak their language?
January 16, 2020
"This “voluntary” servitude (voluntary inasmuch as it is introjected into the individuals) , which justifies the benevolent masters, can be broken only through a political practice which reaches the roots of containment and contentment in the infrastructure of man, a political practice of methodical disengagement from and refusal of the Establishment, aiming at a radical transvaluation of values. Such a practice involves a break with the familiar, the routine ways of seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding things so that the organism may become receptive to the potential forms of a non-aggressive, non-exploitative world."
"Prior to all ethical behavior in accordance with specific social standards, prior to all ideological expression, morality is "a disposition" of the organism, perhaps rooted in the erotic drive to counter aggressiveness, to create and preserve 'ever greater unities'."
"...a sensitivity receptive to forms and modes of reality which thus far have been projected only by the aesthetic imagination."
"Negative thinking is by virtue of its own internal concepts 'positive': oriented toward, and comprehending a future which is 'contained' in the present."
"And the driving force is the refusal to grow up, to mature, to perform efficiently and "normally" in and for society, which compels the vast majority of the population to "earn" their living in stupid, inhuman, and unnecessary jobs..."
"The possibilities of the new society are sufficiently abstract, i.e. removed from and incongruous with the established universe, to defy any attempt to identify them in terms of this universe."
November 18, 2019
ÖZGÜRLÜK ÜZERİNE BİR DENEME
Toplum boğucu bir bollukta mal üretip, kurbanlarını her yerde yaşam ihtiyaçlarından yoksun bırakırken bu malları ahlâksızca sergilediği için müstehcendir; politikacılarının ve eğlendiricilerinin sözcüklerinde ve gülümsemelerinde, cehaletlerinde ve besleme entelektüellerinin bilgeliklerinde müstehcendir.
Tüketici ekonomisi ve şirket kapitalizminin politikası, insanı meta biçimine saldırganca ve libidinal olarak bağlayan ikinci bir insan doğası yarattı. Sahip olma, tüketme, küçük aletleri, aygıtları, araçları, makineleri kullanma ve sürekli yenileme ihtiyacı halka sunulmuş ve kabul ettirilmiştir; çünkü bu malları kendini yok etmek pahasına bile olsa kullanmak, "biyolojik" bir ihtiyaç haline getirilmiştir. Bu biyolojik boyut, yani ihtiyaç ve doyumlar, kölece bir yaşamı yeniden ürettikleri sürece, özgürleşme ancak bu bağın yok olmasıyla, yani insanın bir tüketici olarak satın alarak ve satarak kendini tüketişinin ortadan kalkmasıyla gerçekleşebilir.
Gelecekte özgürlük ve mahremiyet anti-sosyal lüksler olmaya ve bunların elde edilmesi ise ciddi sıkıntılar içermeye başlayabilir. Bunun sonucunda, doğanın tüm fantezilerinin ve el değmemiş yerlerinin yok olduğu, bereketli ve kirlenmiş bir dünyada, denetim altında tutulmayı ve korunaklı bir yaşamı genetik olarak doğal bir şey gibi algılamaya yatkın bir insan soyu doğal ayıklanma yoluyla ortaya çıkabilir. Bu durumda, denetim altındaki bir ortamda, diyetleri denetim altında tutulan evcilleştirilmiş çiftlik hayvanı ve laboratuvar kemirgeni, insan araştırmalarının gerçek modeli haline gelebilir.
Gelecekteki yaşam için gereken etkenler sadece gıda, doğal kaynaklar, güç kaynakları ve beden makinesinin ve bireysel işletme faaliyetlerinin gerektirdiği diğer unsurlar değildir. Özgürlük, bağımsızlık, mahremiyet, inisiyatif ve bir miktar açık alan olanağı da yaşamın insani niteliklerini sürdürmek için o kadar önemlidir (R.Dobus'tan).
Özgürlüğün elde edildiğinin işareti, artık kendimizden utanmıyor olmaktır (Nietzsche'den); böyle hisseden kadın ve erkeklerin imgelemleri akıllarını biçimlendirecek ve üretim sürecini yaratım süreci haline getirecektir.
Özgürlük aslında büyük ölçüde teknik ilerlemeye, bilimin ilerlemesine bağlıdır. Bunu sağlayabilmesi için de bilim ve teknolojinin şimdiki yön ve amaçlarını değiştirmeleri, yeni duyarlığa, yaşam içgüdülerinin taleplerine uygun olarak yeniden inşa edilmeleri gerekmektedir. Ancak o zaman sömürünün ve çok çalışmanın olmadığı bir insan evreninin biçimlerini tasarlayıp planlayabilecek bir bilimsel imgelemin ürünü olan özgürlüğün teknolojisinden söz edilebilir.
Yaşam içgüdülerinin saldırganlık ve suçluluğun üzerine çıkışını ifade eden yeni duyarlık, toplumsal ölçekte, adaletsizliğin ve sefaletin yok edilmesine olan yaşamsal ihtiyacı artıracak ve "yaşam standart"ının ilerideki evrimini biçimlendirecektir. Teknik, sanat olma, sanatta gerçekliği biçimlendirme eğiliminde olacaktır: imgelem ve akıl, yüksek ile alt yetiler, şiirsel ve bilimsel düşünce arasındaki karşıtlık geçersiz hale gelecektir.
Yeni bir Gerçeklik İlkesi'nin ortaya çıkışı, yeni bir duyarlık ve bilimsel zekanın, özgürleştirici sanat (deneyimin nesnelerini yeniden kurarak değiştiren sanat) ile özgürleştirici teknolojinin (sömürünün ve çok çalışmanın olmadığı bir evreni tasarlayacak, sanat olma eğiliminde ve sanatta gerçekliği biçimlendirme eğilimindeki teknoloji) yeni estetik ethos'un yaratılmasında birleşmesiyle gerçekleşebilir.
Yeni duyarlılık ve yeni bilinç, YENİ "DEĞERLER"i tanımlamak ve iletmek için YENİ BİR DİL talep eder; sözcükleri, imgeleri, jestleri, tonlamaları da içeren, tahakkümün söz dağarcığından kopmuş, geniş anlamda bir dil.
Estetik etik, püritenliğin karşıtıdır. Estetik ahlak, sistematik işkence gören ve toplu kıyıma uğrayan insanların her gün duş almaları konusunda ısrar etmez; profesyonel işkence yapanların temiz elbiseler giymesi konusunda da ısrar etmez. Fakat yeryüzünün kapitalizmin ruhunun ürettiği maddi çöpten ve bizzat bu ruhtan temizlenmesinde ısrar eder. Ayrıca, bu ahlak biyolojik bir zorunluluk olarak özgürlükte ısrar eder: Yaşamın korunması ve iyileştirilmesi için gerekli olan baskı dışındaki herhangi bir baskıya fiziksel olarak tahammül edemez.
Gerekli fiziksel enerjinin azalması ve yerini zihinsel enerjinin alması ile üretim sürecinin artan teknolojik niteliği ve işgücünün soyutlaşması, sömürü sistemi olarak kullanılmayan ileri derecede otomatik makine sistemi, daha önceleri öngörülmüş olan emekçinin üretim araçlarından "uzaklaşmasına" izin verebilir; emekçinin, maddi üretimin "ana etkenleri" olmaktan çıkıp onun "yönetici ve düzenleyicisi" olmasına, zorunluluk alanı içerisinde özgür öznenin ortaya çıkmasına neden olabilir.
Doğanın teknoloji ile dönüşümü, şeyleri daha hafif, kolay ve sıradan yapma, yumuşatma ve böylece estetik formlara giderek daha fazla duyarlı ve tabi kılma eğilimindedir. Bu kolay elde edebilme ile paradoks şekilde yoğunlaşan hayat mücadelesi, insanlar arasında yaygın bir saldırganlık yaratır ve bu yaygın saldırganlık, siyah-beyaz, yerli-yabancı, zengin-yoksul vb. herhangi bir hedefe isabet eder.
Diğer taraftan, uluslararası ortak çıkarlar etrafında yeni ve kendiliğinden dayanışmalar ve gösteri-yüzleşme-isyan zemininde gelişen yeni özne ortaya çıkar; diyalektik değişim öncesi bir aydınlanma dönemidir bu. İsyancılar, kurumsallaşmış politikanın dehşet verici ölümcül ciddiyetine karşı maske düşürücü araç olarak alaycı itaatsizliği kullanırlar.
Eşyanın insan üzerindeki hakimiyetinden kurtuluş, özgürlüğün bir önkoşuludur. Özgür bir toplumda insanların ne yapacakları sorusunun yanıtını, meselenin tam kalbine isabet edecek şekilde zenci bir kız çocuğu vermiştir: "HAYATIMIZDA İLK KEZ, NE YAPACAĞIMIZ HAKKINDA DÜŞÜNMEK İÇİN ÖZGÜR OLACAĞIZ."
Toplum boğucu bir bollukta mal üretip, kurbanlarını her yerde yaşam ihtiyaçlarından yoksun bırakırken bu malları ahlâksızca sergilediği için müstehcendir; politikacılarının ve eğlendiricilerinin sözcüklerinde ve gülümsemelerinde, cehaletlerinde ve besleme entelektüellerinin bilgeliklerinde müstehcendir.
Tüketici ekonomisi ve şirket kapitalizminin politikası, insanı meta biçimine saldırganca ve libidinal olarak bağlayan ikinci bir insan doğası yarattı. Sahip olma, tüketme, küçük aletleri, aygıtları, araçları, makineleri kullanma ve sürekli yenileme ihtiyacı halka sunulmuş ve kabul ettirilmiştir; çünkü bu malları kendini yok etmek pahasına bile olsa kullanmak, "biyolojik" bir ihtiyaç haline getirilmiştir. Bu biyolojik boyut, yani ihtiyaç ve doyumlar, kölece bir yaşamı yeniden ürettikleri sürece, özgürleşme ancak bu bağın yok olmasıyla, yani insanın bir tüketici olarak satın alarak ve satarak kendini tüketişinin ortadan kalkmasıyla gerçekleşebilir.
Gelecekte özgürlük ve mahremiyet anti-sosyal lüksler olmaya ve bunların elde edilmesi ise ciddi sıkıntılar içermeye başlayabilir. Bunun sonucunda, doğanın tüm fantezilerinin ve el değmemiş yerlerinin yok olduğu, bereketli ve kirlenmiş bir dünyada, denetim altında tutulmayı ve korunaklı bir yaşamı genetik olarak doğal bir şey gibi algılamaya yatkın bir insan soyu doğal ayıklanma yoluyla ortaya çıkabilir. Bu durumda, denetim altındaki bir ortamda, diyetleri denetim altında tutulan evcilleştirilmiş çiftlik hayvanı ve laboratuvar kemirgeni, insan araştırmalarının gerçek modeli haline gelebilir.
Gelecekteki yaşam için gereken etkenler sadece gıda, doğal kaynaklar, güç kaynakları ve beden makinesinin ve bireysel işletme faaliyetlerinin gerektirdiği diğer unsurlar değildir. Özgürlük, bağımsızlık, mahremiyet, inisiyatif ve bir miktar açık alan olanağı da yaşamın insani niteliklerini sürdürmek için o kadar önemlidir (R.Dobus'tan).
Özgürlüğün elde edildiğinin işareti, artık kendimizden utanmıyor olmaktır (Nietzsche'den); böyle hisseden kadın ve erkeklerin imgelemleri akıllarını biçimlendirecek ve üretim sürecini yaratım süreci haline getirecektir.
Özgürlük aslında büyük ölçüde teknik ilerlemeye, bilimin ilerlemesine bağlıdır. Bunu sağlayabilmesi için de bilim ve teknolojinin şimdiki yön ve amaçlarını değiştirmeleri, yeni duyarlığa, yaşam içgüdülerinin taleplerine uygun olarak yeniden inşa edilmeleri gerekmektedir. Ancak o zaman sömürünün ve çok çalışmanın olmadığı bir insan evreninin biçimlerini tasarlayıp planlayabilecek bir bilimsel imgelemin ürünü olan özgürlüğün teknolojisinden söz edilebilir.
Yaşam içgüdülerinin saldırganlık ve suçluluğun üzerine çıkışını ifade eden yeni duyarlık, toplumsal ölçekte, adaletsizliğin ve sefaletin yok edilmesine olan yaşamsal ihtiyacı artıracak ve "yaşam standart"ının ilerideki evrimini biçimlendirecektir. Teknik, sanat olma, sanatta gerçekliği biçimlendirme eğiliminde olacaktır: imgelem ve akıl, yüksek ile alt yetiler, şiirsel ve bilimsel düşünce arasındaki karşıtlık geçersiz hale gelecektir.
Yeni bir Gerçeklik İlkesi'nin ortaya çıkışı, yeni bir duyarlık ve bilimsel zekanın, özgürleştirici sanat (deneyimin nesnelerini yeniden kurarak değiştiren sanat) ile özgürleştirici teknolojinin (sömürünün ve çok çalışmanın olmadığı bir evreni tasarlayacak, sanat olma eğiliminde ve sanatta gerçekliği biçimlendirme eğilimindeki teknoloji) yeni estetik ethos'un yaratılmasında birleşmesiyle gerçekleşebilir.
Yeni duyarlılık ve yeni bilinç, YENİ "DEĞERLER"i tanımlamak ve iletmek için YENİ BİR DİL talep eder; sözcükleri, imgeleri, jestleri, tonlamaları da içeren, tahakkümün söz dağarcığından kopmuş, geniş anlamda bir dil.
Estetik etik, püritenliğin karşıtıdır. Estetik ahlak, sistematik işkence gören ve toplu kıyıma uğrayan insanların her gün duş almaları konusunda ısrar etmez; profesyonel işkence yapanların temiz elbiseler giymesi konusunda da ısrar etmez. Fakat yeryüzünün kapitalizmin ruhunun ürettiği maddi çöpten ve bizzat bu ruhtan temizlenmesinde ısrar eder. Ayrıca, bu ahlak biyolojik bir zorunluluk olarak özgürlükte ısrar eder: Yaşamın korunması ve iyileştirilmesi için gerekli olan baskı dışındaki herhangi bir baskıya fiziksel olarak tahammül edemez.
Gerekli fiziksel enerjinin azalması ve yerini zihinsel enerjinin alması ile üretim sürecinin artan teknolojik niteliği ve işgücünün soyutlaşması, sömürü sistemi olarak kullanılmayan ileri derecede otomatik makine sistemi, daha önceleri öngörülmüş olan emekçinin üretim araçlarından "uzaklaşmasına" izin verebilir; emekçinin, maddi üretimin "ana etkenleri" olmaktan çıkıp onun "yönetici ve düzenleyicisi" olmasına, zorunluluk alanı içerisinde özgür öznenin ortaya çıkmasına neden olabilir.
Doğanın teknoloji ile dönüşümü, şeyleri daha hafif, kolay ve sıradan yapma, yumuşatma ve böylece estetik formlara giderek daha fazla duyarlı ve tabi kılma eğilimindedir. Bu kolay elde edebilme ile paradoks şekilde yoğunlaşan hayat mücadelesi, insanlar arasında yaygın bir saldırganlık yaratır ve bu yaygın saldırganlık, siyah-beyaz, yerli-yabancı, zengin-yoksul vb. herhangi bir hedefe isabet eder.
Diğer taraftan, uluslararası ortak çıkarlar etrafında yeni ve kendiliğinden dayanışmalar ve gösteri-yüzleşme-isyan zemininde gelişen yeni özne ortaya çıkar; diyalektik değişim öncesi bir aydınlanma dönemidir bu. İsyancılar, kurumsallaşmış politikanın dehşet verici ölümcül ciddiyetine karşı maske düşürücü araç olarak alaycı itaatsizliği kullanırlar.
Eşyanın insan üzerindeki hakimiyetinden kurtuluş, özgürlüğün bir önkoşuludur. Özgür bir toplumda insanların ne yapacakları sorusunun yanıtını, meselenin tam kalbine isabet edecek şekilde zenci bir kız çocuğu vermiştir: "HAYATIMIZDA İLK KEZ, NE YAPACAĞIMIZ HAKKINDA DÜŞÜNMEK İÇİN ÖZGÜR OLACAĞIZ."
April 14, 2017
Opens with the premise that opposition to capitalism globally is met with “the sustained power of this dominion: its economic and military hold in the four continents, its neocolonial empire, and, most important, its unshaken capacity to subject the majority of the underlying population to its overwhelming productivity and force” (vii). One effect of capitalist capacity for violence is the keeping of the socialist bloc on the defensive, “all too costly not only in terms of military expenditures but also in the perpetuation of a repressive bureaucracy” (id.), which has the effect of vitiating the socialist project. He identifies in this context a revolution that “struggles to eschew the bureaucratic administration [sic] of socialism” (viii), citing Vietnam, Cuba, and China as examples (the text is written in 1969).
Am again not so sure about the opening when it diagnoses that “human freedom cannot be built by the established societies” (6) and then proposes the remedy of “a political practice which reaches the roots of containment and contentment in the infrastructure of man, a political practice of methodological disengagement from and refusal of the Establishment, aiming at a radical transvaluation of values” (id.)—eww?
Argument proper identifies the “potential for liberation” in the material basis, “available material and intellectual resources” (7). Though there may internal opposition, “the armed class struggle is waged outside: by the wretched of the earth who fight the affluent monster” (id.). Critical analysis of the foregoing requires “new categories,” which leads, somehow, to “the category of obscenity will serve as an introduction” (id.). Probably a rightward turn in the argument that “this society is obscene in producing and indecently exposing a stifling abundance of wares while depriving its victims abroad of the necessities of life” (id.). Author recognizes that “obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the Establishment” (8), which suggests to me that, whatever the value of immanent critique, perhaps we don’t need to adopt stale establishment moralisms? Author does modify the import by suggesting that nudity is not obscene, but rather “a fully clad general who exposes his medals” (8): “obscene is not the ritual of the Hippies but the declaration of a high dignitary of the Church that war is necessary for peace” (id.). He wants to resuscitate morality as “not necessarily and not primarily ideological,” but rather “in the face of an amoral society, it becomes a political weapon” (id.).
Obscenity triggers shame, and arises from the “sexual sphere”; the shame is oedipal (9) (I know, right?). This is all in service the thesis that there is a “biological foundation for socialism”—and it’s kinda annoying, the Freudian refrain. There are some nifty ideas along the way, such as the point that a car and a television aren’t repressive, but are “part and parcel of the people’s own existence, own actualization” and therefore “they have to buy part and parcel of their own existence on the market; this existence is the realization of capital” (12). The cappies have “turned to socially productive use frustration and primary aggressiveness on an unprecedented scale – unprecedented not in terms of the quantity of violence but rather in terms of its capacity to produce long-range contentment and satisfaction, to reproduce ‘voluntary servitude’” (13).
Assumes that “happiness is an objective condition which demands more than subjective feelings” in laying out the thesis that for as long as a hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes prevails, “the happiness of the ones must coexist with the suffering of others” (14). An example is the contrast between ghettos in the US, which reveal how “the glaring contrast between the privileged class and the exploited leads to a radicalization” (16). The working class, “by virtue of its sharing the stabilizing needs of the system […] has become a conservative, even counterrevolutionary force” (id.). These are arguments that must frustrate orthodox Marxists; they are signature Frankfurt—and they apply with full force and effect in the era of the Trump regime. Radicalization among the impoverished is “counteracted by a socially engineered arrest of consciousness” (16), the imposition of some ideology to prevent the formation of class-for-itself: althusserian ISAs, surely? Some useful argumentation about the realms of freedom/necessity from classical Marxism (17 ff), and the preservation of freedom within necessity. Not sure. Could be good.
Lengthy chapter regarding the alleged “new sensibility”—which concerns “the ascent of the life instincts over aggressiveness and guilt” (23), strikes me as somewhat philistine. Lotsa stuff regarding the ‘aesthetic dimension’ (see e.g. 26 et seq.), which of course is the title of another Marcuse text, to which all should refer. We do know that “the aesthetic morality is the opposite of puritanism” (28), so that’s cool. Some useful commentary on Kant (28 ff), which fits nicely with Deleuze’s text on Kant’s critical philosophy. Lots here, easily summarized with “was the Parthenon worth the sufferings of a single slave? Is it possible to write poetry after Auschwitz?” (44).
Something about “an aesthetic ethos of socialism” (48), which is intellectually interesting, but not my normal approach to the subject.
An interesting argument regarding the lumpenproletariat becoming a radical force—Marcuse dismisses this as nonsense (51). The “changing composition of the working class” is however acknowledged (55). Dude explains that the transition from a “nonrevolutionary to a prerevolutionary situation” entails the “political work” of “radical enlightenment” (57).
Acknowledges that “the student movement is not a revolutionary force” (60). The “dialectics of democracy” involve the notion that the establishment of proper democracy is contingent upon the “abolition of the existing pseudo-democracy” (65).
Quite correct: “The old story: right against right – the positive, codified, enforceable right of the existing society against the negative, unwritten, unenforceable right of transcendence which part of the very existence of man in history” (71).
Recommended for those who recognize that impoverishment does not necessarily provide the soil for revolution, readers whose continuing exploitation is not only hidden behind a technological veil but is actually transfigured, and persons experiencing the dematerialization of labor.
Am again not so sure about the opening when it diagnoses that “human freedom cannot be built by the established societies” (6) and then proposes the remedy of “a political practice which reaches the roots of containment and contentment in the infrastructure of man, a political practice of methodological disengagement from and refusal of the Establishment, aiming at a radical transvaluation of values” (id.)—eww?
Argument proper identifies the “potential for liberation” in the material basis, “available material and intellectual resources” (7). Though there may internal opposition, “the armed class struggle is waged outside: by the wretched of the earth who fight the affluent monster” (id.). Critical analysis of the foregoing requires “new categories,” which leads, somehow, to “the category of obscenity will serve as an introduction” (id.). Probably a rightward turn in the argument that “this society is obscene in producing and indecently exposing a stifling abundance of wares while depriving its victims abroad of the necessities of life” (id.). Author recognizes that “obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the Establishment” (8), which suggests to me that, whatever the value of immanent critique, perhaps we don’t need to adopt stale establishment moralisms? Author does modify the import by suggesting that nudity is not obscene, but rather “a fully clad general who exposes his medals” (8): “obscene is not the ritual of the Hippies but the declaration of a high dignitary of the Church that war is necessary for peace” (id.). He wants to resuscitate morality as “not necessarily and not primarily ideological,” but rather “in the face of an amoral society, it becomes a political weapon” (id.).
Obscenity triggers shame, and arises from the “sexual sphere”; the shame is oedipal (9) (I know, right?). This is all in service the thesis that there is a “biological foundation for socialism”—and it’s kinda annoying, the Freudian refrain. There are some nifty ideas along the way, such as the point that a car and a television aren’t repressive, but are “part and parcel of the people’s own existence, own actualization” and therefore “they have to buy part and parcel of their own existence on the market; this existence is the realization of capital” (12). The cappies have “turned to socially productive use frustration and primary aggressiveness on an unprecedented scale – unprecedented not in terms of the quantity of violence but rather in terms of its capacity to produce long-range contentment and satisfaction, to reproduce ‘voluntary servitude’” (13).
Assumes that “happiness is an objective condition which demands more than subjective feelings” in laying out the thesis that for as long as a hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes prevails, “the happiness of the ones must coexist with the suffering of others” (14). An example is the contrast between ghettos in the US, which reveal how “the glaring contrast between the privileged class and the exploited leads to a radicalization” (16). The working class, “by virtue of its sharing the stabilizing needs of the system […] has become a conservative, even counterrevolutionary force” (id.). These are arguments that must frustrate orthodox Marxists; they are signature Frankfurt—and they apply with full force and effect in the era of the Trump regime. Radicalization among the impoverished is “counteracted by a socially engineered arrest of consciousness” (16), the imposition of some ideology to prevent the formation of class-for-itself: althusserian ISAs, surely? Some useful argumentation about the realms of freedom/necessity from classical Marxism (17 ff), and the preservation of freedom within necessity. Not sure. Could be good.
Lengthy chapter regarding the alleged “new sensibility”—which concerns “the ascent of the life instincts over aggressiveness and guilt” (23), strikes me as somewhat philistine. Lotsa stuff regarding the ‘aesthetic dimension’ (see e.g. 26 et seq.), which of course is the title of another Marcuse text, to which all should refer. We do know that “the aesthetic morality is the opposite of puritanism” (28), so that’s cool. Some useful commentary on Kant (28 ff), which fits nicely with Deleuze’s text on Kant’s critical philosophy. Lots here, easily summarized with “was the Parthenon worth the sufferings of a single slave? Is it possible to write poetry after Auschwitz?” (44).
Something about “an aesthetic ethos of socialism” (48), which is intellectually interesting, but not my normal approach to the subject.
An interesting argument regarding the lumpenproletariat becoming a radical force—Marcuse dismisses this as nonsense (51). The “changing composition of the working class” is however acknowledged (55). Dude explains that the transition from a “nonrevolutionary to a prerevolutionary situation” entails the “political work” of “radical enlightenment” (57).
Acknowledges that “the student movement is not a revolutionary force” (60). The “dialectics of democracy” involve the notion that the establishment of proper democracy is contingent upon the “abolition of the existing pseudo-democracy” (65).
Quite correct: “The old story: right against right – the positive, codified, enforceable right of the existing society against the negative, unwritten, unenforceable right of transcendence which part of the very existence of man in history” (71).
Recommended for those who recognize that impoverishment does not necessarily provide the soil for revolution, readers whose continuing exploitation is not only hidden behind a technological veil but is actually transfigured, and persons experiencing the dematerialization of labor.
March 23, 2025
daily reminder to re-engage with your class consciousness
May 22, 2019
Still not a Marxist. Some interesting things to think about, but ultimately, ascribing all evils to capitalism grows old and tired for evil is present before capitalism as much criticism as it deserves, the language games are also employed by Marxists, and this materialist self referential idea of "life ought to imitate art" made way more sense in Wilde than in rehashed failed ideologies. Marxists shall never get out of the materialist trap, huh?
May 14, 2017
گاهی به واقعیات نزدیک می شود و گاهی تنه به شطحیات مالیخولیایی می زند.
انگار که نویسنده در واپسین سالهای حیات خواسته باشد ناکامی «انسان تک ساحتی» توسری خورده اش را برای خود توجیه کند.
ابتدا به شیءشدگی و به بردگی کشیده شدن آدمی در نظم موجود می پردازد. در این راه هرچند تکنولوژی را مقصر می داند اما در عین حال آزادی نهایی را در گرو همین پیشرفت فنی و ترقی علم می بیند. از نظر او جهت و هدف تکنولوژی می بایست دگرگون شود.
در ادامه ناخنکی هم به «دانش شاد» می زند و آرزوی پدید آمدن انسانی نو در جامعه ای نو را در سر می پروراند. آن هم با کاهش ساعت کار و افزایش آموزش همگانی.
سپس شرایط انقلاب و دگرگونی نظم موجود را بررسی می کند و (احتمالا با استعانت از خرد هگل) با این توجیه که میان فاعل تاریخی این انقلاب (کارگر صنعتی) و خردی که تغییردهنده ی مناسبات است (که آن را در اختیار دانشجو و روشنفکران میداند)، شکافی ایجاد شده، بار انقلاب را احتمالا به دوش هیپی ها می اندازد!
:)))
از طرفی دیگر شرایط را برای ایجاد تغییر در جهان سوم مناسب تر می یابد و حرفی هم از میزان پایستگی این تغییر نمی زند.
انگار که نویسنده در واپسین سالهای حیات خواسته باشد ناکامی «انسان تک ساحتی» توسری خورده اش را برای خود توجیه کند.
ابتدا به شیءشدگی و به بردگی کشیده شدن آدمی در نظم موجود می پردازد. در این راه هرچند تکنولوژی را مقصر می داند اما در عین حال آزادی نهایی را در گرو همین پیشرفت فنی و ترقی علم می بیند. از نظر او جهت و هدف تکنولوژی می بایست دگرگون شود.
در ادامه ناخنکی هم به «دانش شاد» می زند و آرزوی پدید آمدن انسانی نو در جامعه ای نو را در سر می پروراند. آن هم با کاهش ساعت کار و افزایش آموزش همگانی.
سپس شرایط انقلاب و دگرگونی نظم موجود را بررسی می کند و (احتمالا با استعانت از خرد هگل) با این توجیه که میان فاعل تاریخی این انقلاب (کارگر صنعتی) و خردی که تغییردهنده ی مناسبات است (که آن را در اختیار دانشجو و روشنفکران میداند)، شکافی ایجاد شده، بار انقلاب را احتمالا به دوش هیپی ها می اندازد!
:)))
از طرفی دیگر شرایط را برای ایجاد تغییر در جهان سوم مناسب تر می یابد و حرفی هم از میزان پایستگی این تغییر نمی زند.
May 4, 2019
Two quick thoughts:
1) It's been a while since I read One-Dimensional Man, but I feel like this accessible, ~60 page essay contains all the basic principles outlines in the longer book. So, if you wanted a quick introduction to Marcuse, you could read this essay and cover a lot of ground (although...maybe the essay just seemed like a breeze to me because I already had ODM in the cobwebs of my brain somewhere.)
2) Marcuse's critique of middle- and working-class complacency felt... way too relevant in the era of trump & fake news.
a third, bonus thought: Marcuse always gives me hope.
1) It's been a while since I read One-Dimensional Man, but I feel like this accessible, ~60 page essay contains all the basic principles outlines in the longer book. So, if you wanted a quick introduction to Marcuse, you could read this essay and cover a lot of ground (although...maybe the essay just seemed like a breeze to me because I already had ODM in the cobwebs of my brain somewhere.)
2) Marcuse's critique of middle- and working-class complacency felt... way too relevant in the era of trump & fake news.
a third, bonus thought: Marcuse always gives me hope.
March 23, 2020
Fransa 68'inin hemen ertesinde yazılan bu kitap, yeni toplumsal devrimci özne tartışmasına eğiliyor. Geleneksel işçi sınıfı yerine öğrenci hareketi ve gettolarda gelişen isyanların kapitalist sistemi değiştirebileceğini iddia eden Marcuse, toplumun sanat ve dil ile karşılıklı etkileşimini de tartışmaya dahil ediyor. Batı demokrasilerini ve özel olarak ABD emperyalizmini eleştirirken Sovyetlerdeki reel sosyalizm deneyimini de eksik ve yetersiz görüyor. Yazar, bu noktadan hareketle 68 gençliğinden yaptığı çıkarımları da kullanarak toplumsal değişim için özgürlük kavramını merkeze alan bir tartışma yapıyor.
Read
February 27, 2024Ale, este libro es una maravilla. Quizás no estés acostumbrada a este formato más filosófico pero es una joya en cuanto a su aspecto político, cultural y social. Marcuse pertenece a la escuela de Frankfurt que se originó en dicha ciudad entre los años veinte y treinta del siglo veinte. Muchos de sus autores escriben en un estilo casi críptico, lo cual es irónico ya que el objetivo del Instituto de Investigación Social (Institut für Sozialforschung) era sintetizar las tradiciones psicoanalíticas, marxistas y sociológicas en un sistema coherente y alternativo hacia la emancipación del ser humano. Marcuse es una excepción en este sentido.
No obstante, este libro se sitúa en el contexto histórico del Mayo Francés, la Guerra de Vietnam y las tensiones de la Guerra Fría. En el primer capítulo, Marcuse ya deja claro que el capitalismo se ha pervertido y desfigurado de una manera nunca vista hasta ahora. Ha penetrado en la propia biología humana hasta el punto en el que todo tipo de recreación, pasatiempo y poder social benefician al status quo exigiendo ganancia e imponiendo explotación, en muchos casos a través de la violencia. El potencial revolucionario de la clase trabajadora se ve arrebatado de su conciencia colectiva a través de una ingeniería social que promueve el consumo sobre todo lo demás. Este hecho cambia por completo las presuposiciones que se tenían respecto a la jornada laboral y los derechos del obrero. El tiempo de ocio, fuera del ámbito laboral, sería dedicado a la familia, a los amigos, a momentos de introspección. El arte y la cultura eran vistos como revolucionarios. En cambio, el trabajador ahora se dedica a consumir medios, comprar ropa, artículos de "lujo" (accesibles para las clases bajas) y coches, o comer productos de comida rápida los cuales benefician al orden establecido. El cine es propagandístico, la música es comercial y el arte pictórico se ha convertido en una reproducción mecánica de sí mismo, perdiendo toda su esencia.
La penetración del capitalismo en tantas facetas de nuestra vida conducen a cualquier movimiento revolucionario hacia un movimiento emancipatorio individual. No en el sentido opuesto al colectivo social, si no en lo que a lo personal se refiere. Yo, como una unidad, debo liberarme de ciertas prácticas y condicionamientos biológicos que predeterminan mi orientación política y debo superar mi condición a través de un humanismo colectivo. Este desarrollo personal emancipatorio es lo que Marcuse llama la "nueva sensibilidad". Es una fuerza que niega el orden establecido en todos sus aspectos, incluido el soviético.
De aquí deriva también la actitud jovial y desentendida de los movimientos culturales de la época. El rock n’ roll con toda su magnificencia y energía en contra de la seriedad del arte avant garde; los hippies en su estado psicodélico, sucio y desatendido en contra del racionalismo y la limpieza esterilizante del poder político; el amor como respuesta al odio y la violencia innecesaria. Se podría decir mucho acerca de la influencia que han tenido estos movimientos en las democracias contemporáneas y en la actitud apolítica de la juventud hoy en día, pero ese no es el punto de esta reseña.
Marcuse ve en la nueva sensibilidad una oportunidad para la conexión entre humanos, del resurgimiento de la bondad, el cariño y la empatía como valores primordiales. Asegura que a través de esta reconfiguración social, la sociedad empezaría a mejorar poco a poco en un sentido material y sociológico. El arte cobraría un sentido más primitivo y la estética predominante se acercaría a los sentidos ignorados por la ideología contemporánea, como el gusto y el olfato. Marcuse dedica una buena parte del ensayo a esta transición estética que me parece muy interesante, pero no sé hasta que punto te puede interesar a ti.
Hay puntos de este análisis que tacharía de idealista, si no fuese porque el formato del ensayo está escrito bajo un marco teórico establecido. Sin embargo, el análisis que hace Marcuse del funcionamiento de la democracia contemporánea me parece crucial para entender el presente. Para empezar, habla de la integración de los partidos socialistas y revolucionarios en la democracia burguesa. En la mayoría de lo que se suele llamar “occidente”, tras la segunda guerra mundial, se creó una dinámica contradictoria entre las fuerzas revolucionarias y la democracia como único motor de cambio. Esta contradicción sigue aún sin resolverse y los partidos de la “Nueva Izquierda” se han integrado en un sistema que no ofrece verdadera alternativa al capitalismo. La dispersión de la clase obrera en una clase media acomodada y consumista y los esfuerzos revolucionarios llevados a una lucha racial o de minorías, no hacen más que contribuir a la decadencia de la izquierda contemporánea.
En definitiva, la sociedad no tiene otra salida que recurrir a clases revolucionarias minoritarias verdaderamente formadas en el marxismo, como la clase estudiantil, para actuar como catalizador de una revolución. Estos catalizadores son en vano si no hay una clase mayoritaria que decida apoyar estos movimientos. Esta es la tesitura en la que se encuentra la mayoría de Europa y Marcuse concluye insistiendo que la revolución solo puede llevarse a cabo mediante un desarrollo total de la fuerzas tecno-científicas, la creación de nuevas categorías para analizar el capitalismo contemporáneo y la adaptación de valores humanistas que se resumen en la solidaridad.
Me he dejado cosas fuera y aún así me ha quedado un resumen larguísimo. Espero que te sirva de algo :)
No obstante, este libro se sitúa en el contexto histórico del Mayo Francés, la Guerra de Vietnam y las tensiones de la Guerra Fría. En el primer capítulo, Marcuse ya deja claro que el capitalismo se ha pervertido y desfigurado de una manera nunca vista hasta ahora. Ha penetrado en la propia biología humana hasta el punto en el que todo tipo de recreación, pasatiempo y poder social benefician al status quo exigiendo ganancia e imponiendo explotación, en muchos casos a través de la violencia. El potencial revolucionario de la clase trabajadora se ve arrebatado de su conciencia colectiva a través de una ingeniería social que promueve el consumo sobre todo lo demás. Este hecho cambia por completo las presuposiciones que se tenían respecto a la jornada laboral y los derechos del obrero. El tiempo de ocio, fuera del ámbito laboral, sería dedicado a la familia, a los amigos, a momentos de introspección. El arte y la cultura eran vistos como revolucionarios. En cambio, el trabajador ahora se dedica a consumir medios, comprar ropa, artículos de "lujo" (accesibles para las clases bajas) y coches, o comer productos de comida rápida los cuales benefician al orden establecido. El cine es propagandístico, la música es comercial y el arte pictórico se ha convertido en una reproducción mecánica de sí mismo, perdiendo toda su esencia.
La penetración del capitalismo en tantas facetas de nuestra vida conducen a cualquier movimiento revolucionario hacia un movimiento emancipatorio individual. No en el sentido opuesto al colectivo social, si no en lo que a lo personal se refiere. Yo, como una unidad, debo liberarme de ciertas prácticas y condicionamientos biológicos que predeterminan mi orientación política y debo superar mi condición a través de un humanismo colectivo. Este desarrollo personal emancipatorio es lo que Marcuse llama la "nueva sensibilidad". Es una fuerza que niega el orden establecido en todos sus aspectos, incluido el soviético.
De aquí deriva también la actitud jovial y desentendida de los movimientos culturales de la época. El rock n’ roll con toda su magnificencia y energía en contra de la seriedad del arte avant garde; los hippies en su estado psicodélico, sucio y desatendido en contra del racionalismo y la limpieza esterilizante del poder político; el amor como respuesta al odio y la violencia innecesaria. Se podría decir mucho acerca de la influencia que han tenido estos movimientos en las democracias contemporáneas y en la actitud apolítica de la juventud hoy en día, pero ese no es el punto de esta reseña.
Marcuse ve en la nueva sensibilidad una oportunidad para la conexión entre humanos, del resurgimiento de la bondad, el cariño y la empatía como valores primordiales. Asegura que a través de esta reconfiguración social, la sociedad empezaría a mejorar poco a poco en un sentido material y sociológico. El arte cobraría un sentido más primitivo y la estética predominante se acercaría a los sentidos ignorados por la ideología contemporánea, como el gusto y el olfato. Marcuse dedica una buena parte del ensayo a esta transición estética que me parece muy interesante, pero no sé hasta que punto te puede interesar a ti.
Hay puntos de este análisis que tacharía de idealista, si no fuese porque el formato del ensayo está escrito bajo un marco teórico establecido. Sin embargo, el análisis que hace Marcuse del funcionamiento de la democracia contemporánea me parece crucial para entender el presente. Para empezar, habla de la integración de los partidos socialistas y revolucionarios en la democracia burguesa. En la mayoría de lo que se suele llamar “occidente”, tras la segunda guerra mundial, se creó una dinámica contradictoria entre las fuerzas revolucionarias y la democracia como único motor de cambio. Esta contradicción sigue aún sin resolverse y los partidos de la “Nueva Izquierda” se han integrado en un sistema que no ofrece verdadera alternativa al capitalismo. La dispersión de la clase obrera en una clase media acomodada y consumista y los esfuerzos revolucionarios llevados a una lucha racial o de minorías, no hacen más que contribuir a la decadencia de la izquierda contemporánea.
En definitiva, la sociedad no tiene otra salida que recurrir a clases revolucionarias minoritarias verdaderamente formadas en el marxismo, como la clase estudiantil, para actuar como catalizador de una revolución. Estos catalizadores son en vano si no hay una clase mayoritaria que decida apoyar estos movimientos. Esta es la tesitura en la que se encuentra la mayoría de Europa y Marcuse concluye insistiendo que la revolución solo puede llevarse a cabo mediante un desarrollo total de la fuerzas tecno-científicas, la creación de nuevas categorías para analizar el capitalismo contemporáneo y la adaptación de valores humanistas que se resumen en la solidaridad.
Me he dejado cosas fuera y aún así me ha quedado un resumen larguísimo. Espero que te sirva de algo :)
June 11, 2018
Though it was a very short read, but I think it was one of the most important books I’ve read till now. Also, I think it’s important to read this book after reading One-dimensional Man.
I guess it wouldn’t be the last book I read for Marcuse. I really like him!
Though it was a very short read, but I think it was one of the most important books I’ve read till now. Also, I think it’s important to read this book after reading One-dimensional Man.
I guess it wouldn’t be the last book I read for Marcuse. I really like him!
June 20, 2022
Marcuse bester Mann
July 30, 2018
Utopian possibilities are inherent in the technical and technological forces of advanced capitalism and socialism: the rational utilization of these forces on a global scale would terminate poverty and scarcity within a very foreseeable future.
At this stage, the question is no longer: how can the individual satisfy his own needs without hurting others, but rather: how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself, without reproducing, through his aspirations and satisfactions, his dependence on an exploitative apparatus which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude?
At this stage, the question is no longer: how can the individual satisfy his own needs without hurting others, but rather: how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself, without reproducing, through his aspirations and satisfactions, his dependence on an exploitative apparatus which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude?
The so-called consumer economy and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The need for possessing, consuming, handling, and constantly renewing the gadgets, devices, instruments, engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of one’s own destruction, has become a “biological” need in the sense just defined.
The market has always been one of exploitation and thereby of domination, insuring the class structure of society.
Is it still necessary to repeat that science and technology are the great vehicles of liberation, and that it is only their use and restriction in the repressive society which makes them into vehicles of domination?
Self-determination, the autonomy of the individual, asserts itself in the right to race his automobile, to handle his power tools, to buy a gun, to communicate to mass audiences his opinion, no matter how ignorant, how aggressive, it may be.
Capitalism reproduces itself by transforming itself, and this transformation is mainly in the improvement of exploitation.
In the advanced capitalist countries, the radicalization of the working classes is counteracted by a socially engineered arrest of consciousness, and by the development and satisfaction of needs which perpetuate the servitude of the exploited.
The entire realm of competitive performances and standardized fun, all the symbols of status, prestige, power, of advertised virility and charm, of commercialized beauty—this entire realm kills in its citizens the very disposition, the organs, for the alternative: freedom without exploitation.
Capitalist progress thus not only reduces the environment of freedom, the “open space” of the human existence, but also the “longing,” the need for such an environment.
The new sensibility, which expresses the ascent of the life instincts over aggressiveness and guilt, would foster, on a social scale, the vital need for the abolition of injustice and misery and would shape the further evolution of the “standard of living.” The life instincts would find rational expression (sublimation) in planning the distribution of the socially necessary labor time within and among the various branches of production, thus setting priorities of goals and choices: not only what to produce but also the “form” of the product. The liberated consciousness would promote the development of a science and technology free to discover and realize the possibilities of things and men in the protection and gratification of life, playing with the potentialities of form and matter for the attainment of this goal. Technique would then tend to become art, and art would tend to form reality: the opposition between imagination and reason, higher and lower faculties, poetic and scientific thought, would be invalidated. Emergence of a new Reality Principle: under which a new sensibility and a desublimated scientific intelligence would combine in the creation of an aesthetic ethos.
The development of a radical political consciousness among the masses is conceivable only if and when the economic stability and the social cohesion of the system begin to weaken.
To the degree to which the rebellion is directed against a functioning, prosperous, “democratic” society, it is a moral rebellion, against the hypocritical, aggressive values and goals, against the blasphemous religion of this society, against everything it takes seriously, everything it professes while violating what it professes.
Dialectics of democracy: if democracy means self-government of free people, with justice for all, then the realization of democracy would presuppose abolition of the existing pseudo-democracy. In the dynamic of corporate capitalism, the fight for democracy thus tends to assume anti-democratic forms, and to the extent to which the democratic decisions are made in “parliaments” on all levels, the opposition will tend to become extraparliamentary.
In the contemporary period, the questions as to the “end of government” have subsided. It seems that the continued functioning of the society is sufficient justification for its legality and its claim for obedience, and “functioning” seems defined rather negatively as absence of civil war, massive disorder, economic collapse. Otherwise anything goes: military dictatorship, plutocracy, government by gangs and rackets. Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity are not effective arguments against a government which protects property, trade, and commerce at home while it perpetrates its destructive policy abroad. And indeed, there is no enforceable law that could deprive such a constitutional government of its legitimacy and legality. But this means that there is no (enforceable) law other than that which serves the status quo, and that those who refuse such service are eo ipso outside the realm of law even before they come into actual conflict with the law.
But who has the right to set himself up as judge of an established society, who other than the legally constituted agencies or agents, and the majority of the people? Other than these, it could only be a self-appointed elite, or leaders who would arrogate to themselves such judgment. Indeed, if the alternative were between democracy and dictatorship (no matter how “benevolent”), the answer would be noncontroversial: democracy is preferable. However, this democracy does not exist, and the government is factually exercised by a network of pressure groups and “machines,” vested interests represented by and working on and through the democratic institutions. These are not derived from a sovereign people. The representation is representative of the will shaped by the ruling minorities. Consequently, if the alternative is rule by an elite, it would only mean replacement of the present ruling elite by another; and if this other should be the dreaded intellectual elite, it may not be less qualified and less threatening than the prevailing one. True, such government, initially, would not have the endorsement of the majority “inherited” from the previous government—but once the chain of the past governments is broken, the majority would be in a state of flux, and, released from the past management, free to judge the new government in terms of the new common interest. To be sure, this has never been the course of a revolution, but it is equally true that never before has a revolution occurred which had at its disposal the present achievements of productivity and technical progress. Of course, they could be effectively used for imposing another set of repressive controis, but our entire discussion was based on the proposition that the revolution would be liberating only if it were carried by the non-repressive forces stirring in the existing society. The proposition is no more—and no less—than a hope. Prior to its realization, it is indeed only the individual, the individuals, who can judge, with no other legitimation than their consciousness and conscience. But these individuals are more and other than private persons with their particular contingent preferences and interests. Their judgment transcends their subjectivity to the degree to which it is based on independent thought and information, on a rational analysis and evaluation of their society. The existence of a majority of individuals capable of such rationality has been the assumption on which democratic theory has been based. If the established majority is not composed of such individuals, it does not think, will, and act as sovereign people.
What kind of life? We are still confronted with the demand to state the “concrete alternative.” The demand is meaningless if it asks for a blueprint of the specific institutions and relationships which would be those of the new society: they cannot be determined a priori; they will develop, in trial and error, as the new society develops. If we could form a concrete concept of the alternative today, it would not be that of an alternative; the possibilities of the new society are sufficiently “abstract,” i.e., removed from and incongruous with the established universe to defy any attempt to identify them in terms of this universe. However, the question cannot be brushed aside by saying that what matters today is the destruction of the old, of the powers that be, making way for the emergence of the new. Such an answer neglects the essential fact that the old is not simply bad, that it delivers the goods, and that people have a real stake in it. There can be societies which are much worse—there are such societies today. The system of corporate capitalism has the right to insist that those who work for its replacement justify their action.
And there is an answer to the question which troubles the minds of so many men of good will: what are the people in a free society going to do? The answer which, I believe, strikes at the heart of the matter was given by a young black girl. She said: for the first time in our life, we shall be free to think about what we are going to do.
At this stage, the question is no longer: how can the individual satisfy his own needs without hurting others, but rather: how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself, without reproducing, through his aspirations and satisfactions, his dependence on an exploitative apparatus which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude?
At this stage, the question is no longer: how can the individual satisfy his own needs without hurting others, but rather: how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself, without reproducing, through his aspirations and satisfactions, his dependence on an exploitative apparatus which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude?
The so-called consumer economy and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The need for possessing, consuming, handling, and constantly renewing the gadgets, devices, instruments, engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of one’s own destruction, has become a “biological” need in the sense just defined.
The market has always been one of exploitation and thereby of domination, insuring the class structure of society.
Is it still necessary to repeat that science and technology are the great vehicles of liberation, and that it is only their use and restriction in the repressive society which makes them into vehicles of domination?
Self-determination, the autonomy of the individual, asserts itself in the right to race his automobile, to handle his power tools, to buy a gun, to communicate to mass audiences his opinion, no matter how ignorant, how aggressive, it may be.
Capitalism reproduces itself by transforming itself, and this transformation is mainly in the improvement of exploitation.
In the advanced capitalist countries, the radicalization of the working classes is counteracted by a socially engineered arrest of consciousness, and by the development and satisfaction of needs which perpetuate the servitude of the exploited.
The entire realm of competitive performances and standardized fun, all the symbols of status, prestige, power, of advertised virility and charm, of commercialized beauty—this entire realm kills in its citizens the very disposition, the organs, for the alternative: freedom without exploitation.
Capitalist progress thus not only reduces the environment of freedom, the “open space” of the human existence, but also the “longing,” the need for such an environment.
The new sensibility, which expresses the ascent of the life instincts over aggressiveness and guilt, would foster, on a social scale, the vital need for the abolition of injustice and misery and would shape the further evolution of the “standard of living.” The life instincts would find rational expression (sublimation) in planning the distribution of the socially necessary labor time within and among the various branches of production, thus setting priorities of goals and choices: not only what to produce but also the “form” of the product. The liberated consciousness would promote the development of a science and technology free to discover and realize the possibilities of things and men in the protection and gratification of life, playing with the potentialities of form and matter for the attainment of this goal. Technique would then tend to become art, and art would tend to form reality: the opposition between imagination and reason, higher and lower faculties, poetic and scientific thought, would be invalidated. Emergence of a new Reality Principle: under which a new sensibility and a desublimated scientific intelligence would combine in the creation of an aesthetic ethos.
The development of a radical political consciousness among the masses is conceivable only if and when the economic stability and the social cohesion of the system begin to weaken.
To the degree to which the rebellion is directed against a functioning, prosperous, “democratic” society, it is a moral rebellion, against the hypocritical, aggressive values and goals, against the blasphemous religion of this society, against everything it takes seriously, everything it professes while violating what it professes.
Dialectics of democracy: if democracy means self-government of free people, with justice for all, then the realization of democracy would presuppose abolition of the existing pseudo-democracy. In the dynamic of corporate capitalism, the fight for democracy thus tends to assume anti-democratic forms, and to the extent to which the democratic decisions are made in “parliaments” on all levels, the opposition will tend to become extraparliamentary.
In the contemporary period, the questions as to the “end of government” have subsided. It seems that the continued functioning of the society is sufficient justification for its legality and its claim for obedience, and “functioning” seems defined rather negatively as absence of civil war, massive disorder, economic collapse. Otherwise anything goes: military dictatorship, plutocracy, government by gangs and rackets. Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity are not effective arguments against a government which protects property, trade, and commerce at home while it perpetrates its destructive policy abroad. And indeed, there is no enforceable law that could deprive such a constitutional government of its legitimacy and legality. But this means that there is no (enforceable) law other than that which serves the status quo, and that those who refuse such service are eo ipso outside the realm of law even before they come into actual conflict with the law.
But who has the right to set himself up as judge of an established society, who other than the legally constituted agencies or agents, and the majority of the people? Other than these, it could only be a self-appointed elite, or leaders who would arrogate to themselves such judgment. Indeed, if the alternative were between democracy and dictatorship (no matter how “benevolent”), the answer would be noncontroversial: democracy is preferable. However, this democracy does not exist, and the government is factually exercised by a network of pressure groups and “machines,” vested interests represented by and working on and through the democratic institutions. These are not derived from a sovereign people. The representation is representative of the will shaped by the ruling minorities. Consequently, if the alternative is rule by an elite, it would only mean replacement of the present ruling elite by another; and if this other should be the dreaded intellectual elite, it may not be less qualified and less threatening than the prevailing one. True, such government, initially, would not have the endorsement of the majority “inherited” from the previous government—but once the chain of the past governments is broken, the majority would be in a state of flux, and, released from the past management, free to judge the new government in terms of the new common interest. To be sure, this has never been the course of a revolution, but it is equally true that never before has a revolution occurred which had at its disposal the present achievements of productivity and technical progress. Of course, they could be effectively used for imposing another set of repressive controis, but our entire discussion was based on the proposition that the revolution would be liberating only if it were carried by the non-repressive forces stirring in the existing society. The proposition is no more—and no less—than a hope. Prior to its realization, it is indeed only the individual, the individuals, who can judge, with no other legitimation than their consciousness and conscience. But these individuals are more and other than private persons with their particular contingent preferences and interests. Their judgment transcends their subjectivity to the degree to which it is based on independent thought and information, on a rational analysis and evaluation of their society. The existence of a majority of individuals capable of such rationality has been the assumption on which democratic theory has been based. If the established majority is not composed of such individuals, it does not think, will, and act as sovereign people.
What kind of life? We are still confronted with the demand to state the “concrete alternative.” The demand is meaningless if it asks for a blueprint of the specific institutions and relationships which would be those of the new society: they cannot be determined a priori; they will develop, in trial and error, as the new society develops. If we could form a concrete concept of the alternative today, it would not be that of an alternative; the possibilities of the new society are sufficiently “abstract,” i.e., removed from and incongruous with the established universe to defy any attempt to identify them in terms of this universe. However, the question cannot be brushed aside by saying that what matters today is the destruction of the old, of the powers that be, making way for the emergence of the new. Such an answer neglects the essential fact that the old is not simply bad, that it delivers the goods, and that people have a real stake in it. There can be societies which are much worse—there are such societies today. The system of corporate capitalism has the right to insist that those who work for its replacement justify their action.
And there is an answer to the question which troubles the minds of so many men of good will: what are the people in a free society going to do? The answer which, I believe, strikes at the heart of the matter was given by a young black girl. She said: for the first time in our life, we shall be free to think about what we are going to do.
December 15, 2021
No pog here
Read
June 11, 2022Such a weird piece. Section 3 is worth reading.
Read
December 18, 2008In 1969, Herbert Marcuse predicted America's efforts to assist Saddam Hussein in Iraq 1982 and countless other dictators or military agents which were given our aid in order to suppress uprisings by the populaces of third world countries. He predicts the mental sickness which has become prevalent in our society. Marcuse seems to predict the local, youth-oriented, grassroots support for a more progressive way comparable to the campaigning done for Barack Obama. This essay reads less like an essay and more like a manifesto for anarcho-socialism.
Marcuse calls for a new revolution to counter the corporate capitalism which dominates America. Marcuse analyzes how this revolution's instigators are young, college students. He explains why middle class, pre-dominantly white students can lead the fight against oppression. But that's not all that he discusses. There is also a new sensibility which adds a sensuousness to creating equality and treating people humanely which Marcuse hopes to expound.
Marcuse is successful in his description of a revolution, something which Marx was vague about which has led the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao to propagate their own ways. The most basic form of Marcuse's philosophy on liberation is that, in the way that Aristotle's goal was the good life, freedom is Marcuse's since freedom is simply inherently good. Marcuse creates and outlines a future revolution for the good of society and not just the few. He describes how it can be done and what its goals should be. In order to know how it can be done, we must know why it hasn't been done yet and Marcuse summarizes his theory on the repressive and authoritarian nature of our society quite well in this essay. Ultimately, in the last few pages, Marcuse describes just a glimpse of what exactly the end result of this revolution would be and it sounds worthy of respect. If Marx was correct in that socialism is the ultimate trajectory of history, hopefully those who establish it will have read Marcuse to understand would it should be and what it should steer clear of being.
Marcuse calls for a new revolution to counter the corporate capitalism which dominates America. Marcuse analyzes how this revolution's instigators are young, college students. He explains why middle class, pre-dominantly white students can lead the fight against oppression. But that's not all that he discusses. There is also a new sensibility which adds a sensuousness to creating equality and treating people humanely which Marcuse hopes to expound.
Marcuse is successful in his description of a revolution, something which Marx was vague about which has led the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao to propagate their own ways. The most basic form of Marcuse's philosophy on liberation is that, in the way that Aristotle's goal was the good life, freedom is Marcuse's since freedom is simply inherently good. Marcuse creates and outlines a future revolution for the good of society and not just the few. He describes how it can be done and what its goals should be. In order to know how it can be done, we must know why it hasn't been done yet and Marcuse summarizes his theory on the repressive and authoritarian nature of our society quite well in this essay. Ultimately, in the last few pages, Marcuse describes just a glimpse of what exactly the end result of this revolution would be and it sounds worthy of respect. If Marx was correct in that socialism is the ultimate trajectory of history, hopefully those who establish it will have read Marcuse to understand would it should be and what it should steer clear of being.
September 26, 2019
A to the point look a modern capitalist society and the possible. From the book:
"Marx rejects the idea that work can ever become play. Alienation would be reduced with the progressive reduction of the working day, but the latter would remain a day of unfreedorn, rational but not free.
However, the development of the productive forces beyond
their capitalist organization suggests the possibility of freedomwithin the realm of necessity. The quantitative reduction of necessary labor could turn into quality ( freedom ), not in proportion to the reduction but rather to the transformation of the working day, a transformation in which the stupefying, enervating, pseudo-automatic jobs of capitalist progress would be abolished. But the construction of such a society presupposes a type of man with a different sensitivity as well as consciousness : men who would speak a different language, have different gestures, follow different impulses; men who have developed an instinctual barrier against cruelty, brutality, ugliness. Such an instinctual transformation is conceivable as a factor of social change only if it enters the social division of labor, the production relations themselves. They would be shaped by men and women who have the good conscience of being human, tender, sensuous, who are no longer ashamed of themselves — for -the token of freedom attained, that is, no longer being ashamed of ourselves" (Nietzsche, Die FrOhliche Wissenschaft,Book III, 275)"
Page 21
"Marx rejects the idea that work can ever become play. Alienation would be reduced with the progressive reduction of the working day, but the latter would remain a day of unfreedorn, rational but not free.
However, the development of the productive forces beyond
their capitalist organization suggests the possibility of freedomwithin the realm of necessity. The quantitative reduction of necessary labor could turn into quality ( freedom ), not in proportion to the reduction but rather to the transformation of the working day, a transformation in which the stupefying, enervating, pseudo-automatic jobs of capitalist progress would be abolished. But the construction of such a society presupposes a type of man with a different sensitivity as well as consciousness : men who would speak a different language, have different gestures, follow different impulses; men who have developed an instinctual barrier against cruelty, brutality, ugliness. Such an instinctual transformation is conceivable as a factor of social change only if it enters the social division of labor, the production relations themselves. They would be shaped by men and women who have the good conscience of being human, tender, sensuous, who are no longer ashamed of themselves — for -the token of freedom attained, that is, no longer being ashamed of ourselves" (Nietzsche, Die FrOhliche Wissenschaft,Book III, 275)"
Page 21
October 28, 2022
Saggio del '69 invecchiato a mio avviso non benissimo, che critica il capitalismo dei consumi guardando ai movimenti dei neri, agli hippy e alla rivoluzione cubana, evocando tesi non lontane da quelle che oggi sostengono gli accelerazionisti (superare l'attuale grazie alla tecnologia e spostarsi verso una società senza fatica orientata la gioco) e atterrando su una rimessa al centro del bello - non lontana dagli ideali della Grecia antica - che resta più evocativa che argomentata.
October 15, 2024
THE “CRITICAL THEORY” PHILOSOPHER ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF “LIBERATION” (CIRCA 1969)
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) was a German philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory, until he moved to the United States in 1934. (He was even briefly one of the "darlings" of the Student Movement of the 1960s.# He wrote other books, such as 'One-Dimensional Man,' 'Eros and Civilization,' 'Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory,' 'Five Lectures: Psychoanalysis, Politics and Utopia,' 'Negations: Essays in Critical Theory,' 'The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward A Critique of Marxist Aesthetics,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1969 essay, “The growing opposition to the global dominion of corporate capitalism is confronted by the sustained power of this dominion: Its economic and military hold… its neocolonial empire, and… its unshaken capacity to subject the majority of the underlying population to its overwhelming productivity and force. This global power keeps the socialist orbit on the defensive… Now, however, this threatening homogeneity has been loosening up, and an alternative is beginning to break into the repressive continuum… in the men and women who resist and deny the massive exploitative power of corporate capitalism…
"The Great Refusal takes a variety of forms. In Vietnam, in Cuba, in China, a revolution … struggles to eschew the bureaucratic administration of socialism. The guerrilla forces in Latin America seem to be animated by the same subversive impulse… The ghetto populations may well become the first mass basis of revolt… The student opposition is spreading… They confront the critical theory of society with the task of reexamining the prospects for the emergence of a socialist society qualitatively different from existing societies, the task of redefining socialism and its preconditions.”
He points out, “Once a specific morality is firmly established as a norm of social behavior, it is not only introjected---it also operates as a norm of ‘organic’ behavior… In this way, a society constantly re-creates, this side of consciousness and ideology, patterns of behavior and aspiration as part of the ‘nature’ of its people, and unless the revolt reaches into this ‘second’ nature, into these ingrown patterns, social change will remain ‘incomplete,’ even self-defeating.” (Pg. 11)
He states, “The development of a true consciousness is still the professional function of the universities. No wonder then that the student opposition meets the all but pathological hatred on the part of the so-called ‘community,’ including large sections of organized labor. To the degree to which the university becomes dependent on the financial and political goodwill of the community and of the government, the struggle for a free and critical education becomes a vital part in the larger struggle for change.” (Pg. 61)
He acknowledges, “The absurd situation: the established democracy still provides the only legitimate framework for change and must therefore be defended against all attempts on the Right and the Center to restrict this framework, but at the same time, preservation of the established democracy preserves the status quo and the containment of change. Another aspect of the same ambiguity: radical change depends on a mass basis, but every step in the struggle for radical change isolates the opposition from the masses and provokes intensified oppression.” (Pg. 68)
He observes, “our entire discussion was based on the proposition that the revolution would be liberating only if it were carried by the non-repressive forces stirring in the existing society… Prior to its realization, it is indeed only the individual, the individuals, who can judge, with no other legitimation than their consciousness and conscience. But these individuals are more… than private persons with their particular contingent preferences and interests.
"Their judgment transcends their subjectivity to the degree to which it is based on independent thought and information, on a rational analysis and evaluation of their society. The existence of a majority of individuals capable of such rationality has been the assumption on which democratic theory has been based. If the established majority is not composed of such individuals, it does not think, will, and act as sovereign people.” (Pg. 71)
He admits, “We are still confronted with the demand to state the ‘concrete alternative.’ The demand is meaningless if it asks for a blueprint of the specific institutions and relationships which would be those of the new society: they cannot be determined a priori; they will develop, in trial and error, as the new society develops… However, the question cannot be brushed aside by saying that what matters today is the destruction of the old, of the powers that be, making way for the emergence of the new. Such an answer neglects the essential fact that the old is not simply bad, that it delivers the goods, and that people have a real stake in it. There can be societies which are much worse… The system of corporate capitalism has the right to insist that those who work for its replacement justify their action.” (Pg. 86)
He concludes, “The construction of a free society would create new incentives for work. In the exploitative societies, the so-called work instinct is mainly the … introjected necessity to perform productively in order to earn a living. But the life instincts themselves strive for the unification and enhancement of life… they would provide the libidinal energy for work on the development of a reality which would no longer demands the exploitative repression of the Pleasure Principle. The ‘incentives’ would then be built into the instinctual structure of men… The social expression of the liberated work instinct is COOPERATION, which, grounded in solidarity, directs the organization of the realm of necessity and the development of the realm of freedom.” (Pg. 91)
While much of this essay seems very “Sixties,” so to speak, its vision of a changed society may still appeal to those with somewhat of a “revolutionary” spirit.
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) was a German philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory, until he moved to the United States in 1934. (He was even briefly one of the "darlings" of the Student Movement of the 1960s.# He wrote other books, such as 'One-Dimensional Man,' 'Eros and Civilization,' 'Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory,' 'Five Lectures: Psychoanalysis, Politics and Utopia,' 'Negations: Essays in Critical Theory,' 'The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward A Critique of Marxist Aesthetics,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1969 essay, “The growing opposition to the global dominion of corporate capitalism is confronted by the sustained power of this dominion: Its economic and military hold… its neocolonial empire, and… its unshaken capacity to subject the majority of the underlying population to its overwhelming productivity and force. This global power keeps the socialist orbit on the defensive… Now, however, this threatening homogeneity has been loosening up, and an alternative is beginning to break into the repressive continuum… in the men and women who resist and deny the massive exploitative power of corporate capitalism…
"The Great Refusal takes a variety of forms. In Vietnam, in Cuba, in China, a revolution … struggles to eschew the bureaucratic administration of socialism. The guerrilla forces in Latin America seem to be animated by the same subversive impulse… The ghetto populations may well become the first mass basis of revolt… The student opposition is spreading… They confront the critical theory of society with the task of reexamining the prospects for the emergence of a socialist society qualitatively different from existing societies, the task of redefining socialism and its preconditions.”
He points out, “Once a specific morality is firmly established as a norm of social behavior, it is not only introjected---it also operates as a norm of ‘organic’ behavior… In this way, a society constantly re-creates, this side of consciousness and ideology, patterns of behavior and aspiration as part of the ‘nature’ of its people, and unless the revolt reaches into this ‘second’ nature, into these ingrown patterns, social change will remain ‘incomplete,’ even self-defeating.” (Pg. 11)
He states, “The development of a true consciousness is still the professional function of the universities. No wonder then that the student opposition meets the all but pathological hatred on the part of the so-called ‘community,’ including large sections of organized labor. To the degree to which the university becomes dependent on the financial and political goodwill of the community and of the government, the struggle for a free and critical education becomes a vital part in the larger struggle for change.” (Pg. 61)
He acknowledges, “The absurd situation: the established democracy still provides the only legitimate framework for change and must therefore be defended against all attempts on the Right and the Center to restrict this framework, but at the same time, preservation of the established democracy preserves the status quo and the containment of change. Another aspect of the same ambiguity: radical change depends on a mass basis, but every step in the struggle for radical change isolates the opposition from the masses and provokes intensified oppression.” (Pg. 68)
He observes, “our entire discussion was based on the proposition that the revolution would be liberating only if it were carried by the non-repressive forces stirring in the existing society… Prior to its realization, it is indeed only the individual, the individuals, who can judge, with no other legitimation than their consciousness and conscience. But these individuals are more… than private persons with their particular contingent preferences and interests.
"Their judgment transcends their subjectivity to the degree to which it is based on independent thought and information, on a rational analysis and evaluation of their society. The existence of a majority of individuals capable of such rationality has been the assumption on which democratic theory has been based. If the established majority is not composed of such individuals, it does not think, will, and act as sovereign people.” (Pg. 71)
He admits, “We are still confronted with the demand to state the ‘concrete alternative.’ The demand is meaningless if it asks for a blueprint of the specific institutions and relationships which would be those of the new society: they cannot be determined a priori; they will develop, in trial and error, as the new society develops… However, the question cannot be brushed aside by saying that what matters today is the destruction of the old, of the powers that be, making way for the emergence of the new. Such an answer neglects the essential fact that the old is not simply bad, that it delivers the goods, and that people have a real stake in it. There can be societies which are much worse… The system of corporate capitalism has the right to insist that those who work for its replacement justify their action.” (Pg. 86)
He concludes, “The construction of a free society would create new incentives for work. In the exploitative societies, the so-called work instinct is mainly the … introjected necessity to perform productively in order to earn a living. But the life instincts themselves strive for the unification and enhancement of life… they would provide the libidinal energy for work on the development of a reality which would no longer demands the exploitative repression of the Pleasure Principle. The ‘incentives’ would then be built into the instinctual structure of men… The social expression of the liberated work instinct is COOPERATION, which, grounded in solidarity, directs the organization of the realm of necessity and the development of the realm of freedom.” (Pg. 91)
While much of this essay seems very “Sixties,” so to speak, its vision of a changed society may still appeal to those with somewhat of a “revolutionary” spirit.
May 24, 2022
How do I even begin to rate this?
Marcuse was obviously very intelligent...but also a batshit insane communist who wanted everyone to awaken to their real consciousness, realise they'd been kept sedated by all the bread & circuses of modern life, and join the revolution. I can't argue that modernity hasn't anaesthetised a good many of us, to the point where most normies just don't interact with anything beyond the surface of popular entertainment; but more people are more politically aware now thanks to the very shiny devices that seem to keep so many of us asleep.
I don't agree with his reasons for wanting to awaken a true consciousness in everyone - I really just think most of us would be happier if the government stopped screwing around with all the unnecessary bull that serves as nothing more than a means to gaining kick-backs for their cronies - but he's right about the ways in which a more comfortable society begets a more apathetic population.
He is batshit though. As are all commies. And commies need to be defeated.
And not just in Minecraft.
Marcuse was obviously very intelligent...but also a batshit insane communist who wanted everyone to awaken to their real consciousness, realise they'd been kept sedated by all the bread & circuses of modern life, and join the revolution. I can't argue that modernity hasn't anaesthetised a good many of us, to the point where most normies just don't interact with anything beyond the surface of popular entertainment; but more people are more politically aware now thanks to the very shiny devices that seem to keep so many of us asleep.
I don't agree with his reasons for wanting to awaken a true consciousness in everyone - I really just think most of us would be happier if the government stopped screwing around with all the unnecessary bull that serves as nothing more than a means to gaining kick-backs for their cronies - but he's right about the ways in which a more comfortable society begets a more apathetic population.
He is batshit though. As are all commies. And commies need to be defeated.
And not just in Minecraft.
September 15, 2015
Herbert Marcuse is a profound thinker, but a terrible writer. I can almost hear the clumsiness of his original German as he meanders through this well-meaning text. There is one point which he makes rather convincingly ; viz, exploitation and oppression have not lost any of their reality, except that they have been internalized and are replenished by the new needs and wants that consumerist society artifically inculcates within us thanks to its irrational and wasteful production. This is a point that stems from Marcuse's initial beginnings as a Heidegger scholar ; his thesis (also cogently argued in One-Dimensional Man, though if the quality of writing displayed here is anything to go by, I dread reading it) is similar to Heidegger's evocation of alternative modes of Being, though Marcuse makes his point before getting bogged down in dated analysis of the cultural and social trends of the 60's.
September 13, 2010
Excellent essay on the future and nature of political resistance. I was impressed by how relevant Marcuse's critique is, and how the issues of capitalism he was describing in the late 60's are just as relevant (if not more so) today. I'm not sure his exploration of art and aesthetics was particularly useful or relevant to this essay, but fascinating none the less. The only references I found a bit dated were the constant referals to events from the May rebellion of 1968.
For further reading on similar topics, I would reccomend 'Days of War, Nights of Love', 'The Society of The Spectacle' and 'The Dispossessed'.
For further reading on similar topics, I would reccomend 'Days of War, Nights of Love', 'The Society of The Spectacle' and 'The Dispossessed'.
September 11, 2021
Marcuse is likely more responsible for our current political situation than any other author of this period. His arguments about subversion and language permeate the contemporary mileu to the point where it seems doubtful that his disciples are even aware that they have become acolytes of this particular thinker.
September 15, 2022
Açıkçası kitap biraz kazıktı. Önü en baştan söylemeliyim. Upuzun cümleler, sonu başı dikkatle okunması gereken ifadeler ile dolu idi kitap.
Kitabın girişi zaten ütopya kavramı ile başlıyor. Günümüz toplumunun bu kelimenin gerçekdışı içeriğinden yoksun bırakıldığını söylüyor ve artık ifade ettiği şeyin meydana gelmesi yerleşik toplumların güçleri tarafından engellenen şey olarak tanımlıyor. Aslında insanların dertlerinin, ihtiyaçlarını gidermek bu sırada da kimseye zarar vermeden doyumun maksimize edilmesi olarak anlatılıyor denebilir. Ancak burada önemli olan şey insanların dert edindikleri ve ihtiyaç duydukları şeyler. Liberalizm bu yüzden özgürlük kavramını kusura bakmayın ama sikip attı. Gereksiz olan birçok şeyin artık ihtiyaç haline geldiği noktada olduğumuzu söylüyor Marcuse. Toplumun ve sınıf sisteminin sürekliliğini sağlamak ve akıcılığını korumak için insan köleliği - köleliği üreten ihtiyaçlar ve değerlerden bahsediyor. Bu ihtiyaçlar karşısında kendi gönüllü köleliğimizi oluşturuyoruz.
Müstehcen'lik kavramını çok güzel ifade ediyor Marcuse, ben bu kadar güzel ifade eden birini görmemiştim. Diyor ki "toplum boğucu bir bollukta mal ürettiği ve kurbanlarını her yerde yaşam ihtiyaçlarından yoksun bırakırken bu malları ahlaksızca sergilediği için müstehcendir." "Müstehcen olan cinsel organının çevresindeki kılları sergileyen çıplak bir kadının resmi değil saldırı savaşında kazandığı madalyaları sergileyen tam giyimli bir generalin resmidir."
Artık günümüzde cinsellik yavaş yavaş tabu olmaktan çıkıyor işte bu konuya değiniyor yazar. Cinselliğin özgürleştirilmesinin refah toplumunun baskıcı güçlerine zemin sağlaması gibi bir çelişkiden de bahsediyor: Tabuların gevşetilmesi suçluluk duygusunu hafifletir ve "özgür" bireyleri, libidinal olarak, kurumsallaşmış babalarla bağlar. (baba=ülke yöneticisi) ancak eğer tabuların ihlali cinsel alanı aşar ve reddediş isyana yol açarsa, suçluluk duygusu bastırılmaktansa aktarılır. diyor. Biz değil babalar suçlu, hoşgörülü değiller'e döner konu. Sonuç olarak içgüdüsel ayaklanma politik isyana dönüşür. Aslında bu reddedişin olumlayıcı olduğunu söylüyor çünkü kültür oluşturduğu için yapay bir sistem yerine doğal bir sistem oluşturuyor. Sanatın bu işlerde rolünün çok yüksek olduğunu söylüyor kitap boyunca.
Kitapta çoğunluk olarak pazar, sermaye bunların algı ve reklamlarla bizi satın oldığı ve harcamak için çalıştığımızı çok vurguluyor: "İnsanlar kendi varoluşlarının önemli parçasını pazardan satın almak zorundadır; bu varoluş sermayenin gerçekleşmesidir."
Günümüzde işçi sınıfının Marxist kavramdaki tanımdan daha farklı bi noktaya geldiğini söylüyor: işçi sınıdı sistemin dengeleyici ihtiyaçlarını paylaşması nedeniyle daha muhafazakar hatta karşıdevrimci bir güç haline gelmiştir. İşçi sınıfının satın alabilme becerisinin radikelleşmelerine engel olduğunu söylüyor Marcuse. "Var olan sistemin sağladığı bir çıkar böylelikle sömürülenlerin içgüdüsel yapısına yerleştirilmiştir ve baskının sürekliliğinden kopuş gerçekleşmez."
Bilimin ve teknolojinin ilerlemesinin yanlış yönde olduğunu savunuyor yazar ve bunun değişmesi gerektiğini söylüyor. İşte o zaman sömürünün ve çok çalışmanın olmadığı bir insan evreninin biçimlerini tasarlayıp planlayabilecek bir bilimsel imgelemin ürünü olan özgürlüğün teknolojisinden bahsedilebilir. Fakat bu şen bilim sadece tahakkümün sürekliliğinden tarihsel bir kopuş ile yeni tip insanların ihtiyaçlarını ifade eder."
burası önemli Engels özgürlüğü aslında çok yönlü birey şeklinde tanımlıyor. Bu çok güzel bir örnek çünkü çok yönlü birey farklı ilgi duyduğu şeylerle ilgilenebilecek zamanı bulabilmesinden öte bu sistemin çarkları içinde iş'inden başka ilgilenebilecek bir şeyi bulması için gereken özgür zihne sahip olmuş oluyor. Süper.
Engels,in bu yorumu üzerine yazar ekliyot ileri sayfalarda "zorunlu emeğin niceliksel olarak azalması, işgücünün kısalmasıyla değil, onun dönüşümüyle orantılı olarak, niteliğe(özgürlüğe) dönüşür."
Bir bölüm sadece sanat ve kültürün devrim ve isyanla harmanlanarak anca kalıcı olabileceğini ve şuanki durum ve koşullarda en büyük silahın sanat-mizah olabileceğinden bahsediyor.
Artık zihinsel işlerin daha fazla olduğu için işgücünün soyutlaştığından bahsediyor. İşgücünün verimindeki büyük artış lükslerin giderek artan üretimini sağlıyor.
Bir yanda dünyanın teknolojik dönüşümünün özgürleştirici olanakları, kolay ve özgür yaşam, diğer yanda yaşam mücadelesinin yoğunlaşması arasındaki açık çelişki halk arasında yaygın bir saldırganlık yaratır ve bu yaygın saldırganlık sözde ulusal düşmandan nefret etmeye ve savaşmaya yönlendirilmedikçe uygun herhangi bir hedefe isabet eder: siyah-beyaz, yerli-yabancı, yahudi hristiyan gibi. Bu konuda inanılmaz haklı.
Devamı kitapta eheh
Kitabın girişi zaten ütopya kavramı ile başlıyor. Günümüz toplumunun bu kelimenin gerçekdışı içeriğinden yoksun bırakıldığını söylüyor ve artık ifade ettiği şeyin meydana gelmesi yerleşik toplumların güçleri tarafından engellenen şey olarak tanımlıyor. Aslında insanların dertlerinin, ihtiyaçlarını gidermek bu sırada da kimseye zarar vermeden doyumun maksimize edilmesi olarak anlatılıyor denebilir. Ancak burada önemli olan şey insanların dert edindikleri ve ihtiyaç duydukları şeyler. Liberalizm bu yüzden özgürlük kavramını kusura bakmayın ama sikip attı. Gereksiz olan birçok şeyin artık ihtiyaç haline geldiği noktada olduğumuzu söylüyor Marcuse. Toplumun ve sınıf sisteminin sürekliliğini sağlamak ve akıcılığını korumak için insan köleliği - köleliği üreten ihtiyaçlar ve değerlerden bahsediyor. Bu ihtiyaçlar karşısında kendi gönüllü köleliğimizi oluşturuyoruz.
Müstehcen'lik kavramını çok güzel ifade ediyor Marcuse, ben bu kadar güzel ifade eden birini görmemiştim. Diyor ki "toplum boğucu bir bollukta mal ürettiği ve kurbanlarını her yerde yaşam ihtiyaçlarından yoksun bırakırken bu malları ahlaksızca sergilediği için müstehcendir." "Müstehcen olan cinsel organının çevresindeki kılları sergileyen çıplak bir kadının resmi değil saldırı savaşında kazandığı madalyaları sergileyen tam giyimli bir generalin resmidir."
Artık günümüzde cinsellik yavaş yavaş tabu olmaktan çıkıyor işte bu konuya değiniyor yazar. Cinselliğin özgürleştirilmesinin refah toplumunun baskıcı güçlerine zemin sağlaması gibi bir çelişkiden de bahsediyor: Tabuların gevşetilmesi suçluluk duygusunu hafifletir ve "özgür" bireyleri, libidinal olarak, kurumsallaşmış babalarla bağlar. (baba=ülke yöneticisi) ancak eğer tabuların ihlali cinsel alanı aşar ve reddediş isyana yol açarsa, suçluluk duygusu bastırılmaktansa aktarılır. diyor. Biz değil babalar suçlu, hoşgörülü değiller'e döner konu. Sonuç olarak içgüdüsel ayaklanma politik isyana dönüşür. Aslında bu reddedişin olumlayıcı olduğunu söylüyor çünkü kültür oluşturduğu için yapay bir sistem yerine doğal bir sistem oluşturuyor. Sanatın bu işlerde rolünün çok yüksek olduğunu söylüyor kitap boyunca.
Kitapta çoğunluk olarak pazar, sermaye bunların algı ve reklamlarla bizi satın oldığı ve harcamak için çalıştığımızı çok vurguluyor: "İnsanlar kendi varoluşlarının önemli parçasını pazardan satın almak zorundadır; bu varoluş sermayenin gerçekleşmesidir."
Günümüzde işçi sınıfının Marxist kavramdaki tanımdan daha farklı bi noktaya geldiğini söylüyor: işçi sınıdı sistemin dengeleyici ihtiyaçlarını paylaşması nedeniyle daha muhafazakar hatta karşıdevrimci bir güç haline gelmiştir. İşçi sınıfının satın alabilme becerisinin radikelleşmelerine engel olduğunu söylüyor Marcuse. "Var olan sistemin sağladığı bir çıkar böylelikle sömürülenlerin içgüdüsel yapısına yerleştirilmiştir ve baskının sürekliliğinden kopuş gerçekleşmez."
Bilimin ve teknolojinin ilerlemesinin yanlış yönde olduğunu savunuyor yazar ve bunun değişmesi gerektiğini söylüyor. İşte o zaman sömürünün ve çok çalışmanın olmadığı bir insan evreninin biçimlerini tasarlayıp planlayabilecek bir bilimsel imgelemin ürünü olan özgürlüğün teknolojisinden bahsedilebilir. Fakat bu şen bilim sadece tahakkümün sürekliliğinden tarihsel bir kopuş ile yeni tip insanların ihtiyaçlarını ifade eder."
burası önemli Engels özgürlüğü aslında çok yönlü birey şeklinde tanımlıyor. Bu çok güzel bir örnek çünkü çok yönlü birey farklı ilgi duyduğu şeylerle ilgilenebilecek zamanı bulabilmesinden öte bu sistemin çarkları içinde iş'inden başka ilgilenebilecek bir şeyi bulması için gereken özgür zihne sahip olmuş oluyor. Süper.
Engels,in bu yorumu üzerine yazar ekliyot ileri sayfalarda "zorunlu emeğin niceliksel olarak azalması, işgücünün kısalmasıyla değil, onun dönüşümüyle orantılı olarak, niteliğe(özgürlüğe) dönüşür."
Bir bölüm sadece sanat ve kültürün devrim ve isyanla harmanlanarak anca kalıcı olabileceğini ve şuanki durum ve koşullarda en büyük silahın sanat-mizah olabileceğinden bahsediyor.
Artık zihinsel işlerin daha fazla olduğu için işgücünün soyutlaştığından bahsediyor. İşgücünün verimindeki büyük artış lükslerin giderek artan üretimini sağlıyor.
Bir yanda dünyanın teknolojik dönüşümünün özgürleştirici olanakları, kolay ve özgür yaşam, diğer yanda yaşam mücadelesinin yoğunlaşması arasındaki açık çelişki halk arasında yaygın bir saldırganlık yaratır ve bu yaygın saldırganlık sözde ulusal düşmandan nefret etmeye ve savaşmaya yönlendirilmedikçe uygun herhangi bir hedefe isabet eder: siyah-beyaz, yerli-yabancı, yahudi hristiyan gibi. Bu konuda inanılmaz haklı.
Devamı kitapta eheh
August 14, 2025
Finished this while listening to the New Discourses podcast by James Lindsay. Lindsay's takedown of Marcuse's essay is enlightening, as he pulls the Gnostic parasite to pieces. I have taken some notes during the four podcast episodes, and will try to place the summaries by point.
The four aspects of Marcuse's case for Communism are 1. biological, 2. "new sensibility, 3. subverting forces in transition, 4. solidarity
Marcuse's claims are that liberal democracy, or a democratic-republic, are not liberating, and negates the evils of Communism's atrocious bloody wake. Marcuse calls solidarity of the various identity group movements (which is not possible), and upholds evil men (Mao, Che Guevara, the Castro brothers; and romanticized the Vietcong, the PLA and Red Guard from China's Cultural Revolution). Praxis, which is putting theory into action, was the vehicle that would push for radical change in society.
These are held up as the vanguards of guerilla warfare to destabilize Capitalism and all of the hallmarks of liberty and a free civil society. He desired a circular economy (e.g. World Economic Forum and the Great Reset), and the linchpin to escalate this (think of the government lockdowns for a pandemic). Marcuse promoted and condoned violence and sedition to bring about Communism. Buzzwords which were promoted are "sustainability", "solidarity", "we're all in this together", etc.
In the biological aspect of socialism, Marcuse negates eugenics but, he has a Malthusian mindset, which rather underscores eugenics anyway. Nice try, but no cigar! Marcuse hated prosperity and any form of individual success in free societies, because he wanted a Communist society where all are forced into equality of material comforts (which never works out anyway).
A new sensibility is an idea which goes way back to Jean-Jeaque Roseau, which rejected reason for feelings and believed in the "noble savage" hypothesis. This really promotes the Peter Pan effect where adults in society refuse to grow up and be responsible. Marcuse pushed for narcissistic and hedonistic desires. He promoted the hippie lifestyle (Woodstock 1969, for example) where there is promiscuous sex, psychedelic drugs (MK Ultra) to create a "new morality" and "new reality".
Marcuse also desired to have power to control others, to be a central planner of his schemes. Some of his influences are Roseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, and he is responsible for planting the seeds for Post Modernism. All of these men were interested in subverting the Enlightenment Era, which promoted reason; these losers wanted to do what they felt like doing.
Marcuse was a gnostic and a Promethean.
The four aspects of Marcuse's case for Communism are 1. biological, 2. "new sensibility, 3. subverting forces in transition, 4. solidarity
Marcuse's claims are that liberal democracy, or a democratic-republic, are not liberating, and negates the evils of Communism's atrocious bloody wake. Marcuse calls solidarity of the various identity group movements (which is not possible), and upholds evil men (Mao, Che Guevara, the Castro brothers; and romanticized the Vietcong, the PLA and Red Guard from China's Cultural Revolution). Praxis, which is putting theory into action, was the vehicle that would push for radical change in society.
These are held up as the vanguards of guerilla warfare to destabilize Capitalism and all of the hallmarks of liberty and a free civil society. He desired a circular economy (e.g. World Economic Forum and the Great Reset), and the linchpin to escalate this (think of the government lockdowns for a pandemic). Marcuse promoted and condoned violence and sedition to bring about Communism. Buzzwords which were promoted are "sustainability", "solidarity", "we're all in this together", etc.
In the biological aspect of socialism, Marcuse negates eugenics but, he has a Malthusian mindset, which rather underscores eugenics anyway. Nice try, but no cigar! Marcuse hated prosperity and any form of individual success in free societies, because he wanted a Communist society where all are forced into equality of material comforts (which never works out anyway).
A new sensibility is an idea which goes way back to Jean-Jeaque Roseau, which rejected reason for feelings and believed in the "noble savage" hypothesis. This really promotes the Peter Pan effect where adults in society refuse to grow up and be responsible. Marcuse pushed for narcissistic and hedonistic desires. He promoted the hippie lifestyle (Woodstock 1969, for example) where there is promiscuous sex, psychedelic drugs (MK Ultra) to create a "new morality" and "new reality".
Marcuse also desired to have power to control others, to be a central planner of his schemes. Some of his influences are Roseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, and he is responsible for planting the seeds for Post Modernism. All of these men were interested in subverting the Enlightenment Era, which promoted reason; these losers wanted to do what they felt like doing.
Marcuse was a gnostic and a Promethean.
May 17, 2021
[O]n muokattava radikaalisti uudelleen koko sosiologinen ja poliittinen sanasto; se on riisuttava väärästä puolueettomuudestaan; se on järjestelmällisesti ja provosoivasti "moralisoitava"[.]
Jos Yksiulotteinen ihminen tyytyi kritisoimaan, tässä Marcuse tarjoaa konkreetttisempaa, poliittisempaa reseptiä aiemmin hahmottelemiinsa yhteiskunnallisiin ongelmiin. Resepti vain kuulostaa täysin hattara-utopistiselta: kultturisella muutoksella (1960-luvun vastakulttuuri) saadaan aikaan muutos "ihmisluonnossa" ja ihmisten "tarpeissa" (jäi epäselväksi mitä freudo-marxilainen Marcuse näillä oikeastaan tarkoittaa). Väkivalta ja aggressio jäävät historiaan. Tästä prosessista Marcuse käyttää Nietzschen käsitettä "arvojen uudelleen arviointi".
Marcuse osoittaa tunnistavansa elitisminsä ja antidemokraattisuutensa ongelmat, mutta siihen se sitten jääkin. Mitään syvällistä pohdintaa älymystön diktatuurin oikeutuksesta on turha odottaa. Marcusen mukaan se olisi parempi kuin nykyinen näennäisdemokratia, ja se riittää hänelle. Demokratia täytyy hävittää, jotta voidaan saavutttaa ”todellinen demokratia” (s.26-7), jne. Vallankumous on oikeutettu, koska demokraattinen muutos olisi liian hidas (s.77). Liiankin tuttua roskaa.
Mielenkiintoinen Kaczynskia vasten luettuna, sillä Marcuse ei ainoastaan hyväksy teollista teknologiaa vaan väittää sen olevan ”vapaan yhteiskunnan edellytys” (s.33).
Näin jälkikäteen tarkasteltuna Marcusen luottamus uuteen vasemmistoon, opiskelijaliikkeeseen ja ”kulttuurimarxilaisuuteen” on traagista. Tämänkin kysymyksen kohdalla hän kirjoittaa tiedostavansa ortodoksimarxilaisen kritiikin, mutta ei tunnu suhtautuvan siihen vakavissaan. Nykyään ymmärrämme Marcusen ihaileman ilmiön kertoneen juuri ”kehittyneen kapitalismin integroivaa voimaa vastustavan opposition heikkoudesta”. (s.65-6)
Samoin Marcuse kiinnostavasti tunnistaa sen mahdollisuuden, että ”roturistiriidat syrjäyttävät tai häivyttävät luokkaristiriidat” (s.71). Mitään analyysiä tai ratkaisuehdotusta ongelmaan ei valitettavasti tarjota.
Suomentaja Markku Lahtelan jälkisanat olivat mielenkiintoiset. Hän tuntuu edustavan jonkinlaista epäpoliittista ja biologistista linjaa, mistä syystä hänen kiinnostuksensa Marcusea kohtaan jää selitystä vaille. Marcusehan edustaa juuri niitä edistysuskoisia ja pinnallisia ”valistajia”, joiden Lahtela povaa vievän ”meidät tuhoon” (s.125).
[Y]leinen tahto on aina väärä – väärä sikäli että se objektiivisesti ehkäisee yhteiskunnan muuttamisen elämänmuodoiltaan inhimillisemmäksi.
Jos Yksiulotteinen ihminen tyytyi kritisoimaan, tässä Marcuse tarjoaa konkreetttisempaa, poliittisempaa reseptiä aiemmin hahmottelemiinsa yhteiskunnallisiin ongelmiin. Resepti vain kuulostaa täysin hattara-utopistiselta: kultturisella muutoksella (1960-luvun vastakulttuuri) saadaan aikaan muutos "ihmisluonnossa" ja ihmisten "tarpeissa" (jäi epäselväksi mitä freudo-marxilainen Marcuse näillä oikeastaan tarkoittaa). Väkivalta ja aggressio jäävät historiaan. Tästä prosessista Marcuse käyttää Nietzschen käsitettä "arvojen uudelleen arviointi".
Marcuse osoittaa tunnistavansa elitisminsä ja antidemokraattisuutensa ongelmat, mutta siihen se sitten jääkin. Mitään syvällistä pohdintaa älymystön diktatuurin oikeutuksesta on turha odottaa. Marcusen mukaan se olisi parempi kuin nykyinen näennäisdemokratia, ja se riittää hänelle. Demokratia täytyy hävittää, jotta voidaan saavutttaa ”todellinen demokratia” (s.26-7), jne. Vallankumous on oikeutettu, koska demokraattinen muutos olisi liian hidas (s.77). Liiankin tuttua roskaa.
Mielenkiintoinen Kaczynskia vasten luettuna, sillä Marcuse ei ainoastaan hyväksy teollista teknologiaa vaan väittää sen olevan ”vapaan yhteiskunnan edellytys” (s.33).
Näin jälkikäteen tarkasteltuna Marcusen luottamus uuteen vasemmistoon, opiskelijaliikkeeseen ja ”kulttuurimarxilaisuuteen” on traagista. Tämänkin kysymyksen kohdalla hän kirjoittaa tiedostavansa ortodoksimarxilaisen kritiikin, mutta ei tunnu suhtautuvan siihen vakavissaan. Nykyään ymmärrämme Marcusen ihaileman ilmiön kertoneen juuri ”kehittyneen kapitalismin integroivaa voimaa vastustavan opposition heikkoudesta”. (s.65-6)
Samoin Marcuse kiinnostavasti tunnistaa sen mahdollisuuden, että ”roturistiriidat syrjäyttävät tai häivyttävät luokkaristiriidat” (s.71). Mitään analyysiä tai ratkaisuehdotusta ongelmaan ei valitettavasti tarjota.
Suomentaja Markku Lahtelan jälkisanat olivat mielenkiintoiset. Hän tuntuu edustavan jonkinlaista epäpoliittista ja biologistista linjaa, mistä syystä hänen kiinnostuksensa Marcusea kohtaan jää selitystä vaille. Marcusehan edustaa juuri niitä edistysuskoisia ja pinnallisia ”valistajia”, joiden Lahtela povaa vievän ”meidät tuhoon” (s.125).
[Y]leinen tahto on aina väärä – väärä sikäli että se objektiivisesti ehkäisee yhteiskunnan muuttamisen elämänmuodoiltaan inhimillisemmäksi.
October 30, 2022
اگر فقط یک کتاب به درد این روز ها بخورد آنهم همین است!
لطفا، خواهشا بخونید
میدونم این روز ها همه درگیر مشکلات اقتصادی هستند و فقط درگیر دنبال کردن اخبار روز
اما آینده این مملکت به آگاهی ما نیاز دارد
خصوصا دوستان هم نسل خودم موسوم به نسل هزاره بین 25 تا 40 سال که سرنوشت این انقلاب به خودآگاهی این دوستان وابسته است
جدا از تحلیل های جانبداری این یا آن خودتان بخوانید و با مطالعه سطر سطر آن و همزمان مقایسه با وقایع امروز کشور، ساعت ها بیاندیشید!
چرا؟
به دلیل اینکه با خواندن این کتاب و مقایسه تحلیل های اعتراضات می 68 فرانسه با وقایع امروز به بسیاری از سوالات کنونی ذهنتان پاسخ داده میشود
چه باید کرد؟
خشونت مشروع؟
دموکراسی مستقیم یا غیر مستقیم؟
اصلاح قانون وقتی خود مشکل قانونی دارد؟
نیروهای براندازنده امروز در کشور های جهان سوم؟
لزوم همبستگی با حساسیت نو امروز جامعه؟
و اولویت به آزادی های فردی در کنار برابری اقتصادی؟
و بسیاری دیگر از سوالات مطرح همین امروز کشورمان
البته اگر قبلش کتاب های "انسان تک ساحتی" و "اروس و تمدی" مارکوزه را هم خوانده باشید بهتر است چراکه این جزوه 100صفحه ای تقریبا چکیده ای از این دو کتاب به علاوه اشاره به وقایع می 68 آن روز هاست
اگر هم حتی قبلا آثار مارکس و نیچه را نخوانده اید و یا حتی نمیدانید که مارکس خوردنی است یا پوشیدنی، باز هم هیچ اشکالی ندارد حداقل جای این کتب زرد روانشناسی و اصول موفقیت، حداقل همین یک کتاب مهم را بخوانید!
مارکوزه در این کتاب آنقدرها به مباحث فلسفی اشاره نمیکند و بیشتر حرفش حرف روز به زبان سادست، هرچند ترجمه اش قدری کار مطالعه را سخت میکند اما باز ترجمه نسبتا خوبیست.
در یک کلام حیرت انگیزه وقتی میبینید بعد 54 سال حرف ها و تحلیل ها عین همانیست که آنروز ها توسط سارتر ها، مارکوزه ها و سایرین گفته میشد!
گول این تحلیل های امروزی رسانه های داخلی و خارجی را نخورید، توجه کنید چپ نو سرمایه و قدرتی برای رسانه زدن ندارد و حرف های کنونی تماما یکسویه به نفع خودشان است. حداقل از همه ایده ها باهم بخوانید و خود تصمیم بگیرید
سال ها به ما گفتند پایان تاریخ، نه خیر تاریخ تمام نشده
این ماییم که 54 سال تمام درجا زدیم
این الیناسیون ناشی از تکنولوژی سرمایه داری ماست که ما را از واقعیت روز دور نگه داشت
این شیء شدگی ناشی از فرهنگ غالب بود که از ما انسان تک بعدی ساخت
جمله ای از کتاب:
تحول توسط افرادی شکل خواهد گرفت که وجدانشان از بابت انسان بودن راحت است
چراکه به قول نیچه در دانش شاد:
به یمن آزادی به دست آمده دیگر از خویشتن شرمسار نیستید
جمله انتهایی کتاب:
در میانه قرن بیستم از یک دختر جوان سیاهپوست معترض پرسیدند آزادی میخواهی که چه بکنی؟
پاسخ داد برای نخستین بار در زندگی ام آزاد خواهم بود تا درباره آنچه میخواهم انجام دهم بیاندیشم!
لطفا، خواهشا بخونید
میدونم این روز ها همه درگیر مشکلات اقتصادی هستند و فقط درگیر دنبال کردن اخبار روز
اما آینده این مملکت به آگاهی ما نیاز دارد
خصوصا دوستان هم نسل خودم موسوم به نسل هزاره بین 25 تا 40 سال که سرنوشت این انقلاب به خودآگاهی این دوستان وابسته است
جدا از تحلیل های جانبداری این یا آن خودتان بخوانید و با مطالعه سطر سطر آن و همزمان مقایسه با وقایع امروز کشور، ساعت ها بیاندیشید!
چرا؟
به دلیل اینکه با خواندن این کتاب و مقایسه تحلیل های اعتراضات می 68 فرانسه با وقایع امروز به بسیاری از سوالات کنونی ذهنتان پاسخ داده میشود
چه باید کرد؟
خشونت مشروع؟
دموکراسی مستقیم یا غیر مستقیم؟
اصلاح قانون وقتی خود مشکل قانونی دارد؟
نیروهای براندازنده امروز در کشور های جهان سوم؟
لزوم همبستگی با حساسیت نو امروز جامعه؟
و اولویت به آزادی های فردی در کنار برابری اقتصادی؟
و بسیاری دیگر از سوالات مطرح همین امروز کشورمان
البته اگر قبلش کتاب های "انسان تک ساحتی" و "اروس و تمدی" مارکوزه را هم خوانده باشید بهتر است چراکه این جزوه 100صفحه ای تقریبا چکیده ای از این دو کتاب به علاوه اشاره به وقایع می 68 آن روز هاست
اگر هم حتی قبلا آثار مارکس و نیچه را نخوانده اید و یا حتی نمیدانید که مارکس خوردنی است یا پوشیدنی، باز هم هیچ اشکالی ندارد حداقل جای این کتب زرد روانشناسی و اصول موفقیت، حداقل همین یک کتاب مهم را بخوانید!
مارکوزه در این کتاب آنقدرها به مباحث فلسفی اشاره نمیکند و بیشتر حرفش حرف روز به زبان سادست، هرچند ترجمه اش قدری کار مطالعه را سخت میکند اما باز ترجمه نسبتا خوبیست.
در یک کلام حیرت انگیزه وقتی میبینید بعد 54 سال حرف ها و تحلیل ها عین همانیست که آنروز ها توسط سارتر ها، مارکوزه ها و سایرین گفته میشد!
گول این تحلیل های امروزی رسانه های داخلی و خارجی را نخورید، توجه کنید چپ نو سرمایه و قدرتی برای رسانه زدن ندارد و حرف های کنونی تماما یکسویه به نفع خودشان است. حداقل از همه ایده ها باهم بخوانید و خود تصمیم بگیرید
سال ها به ما گفتند پایان تاریخ، نه خیر تاریخ تمام نشده
این ماییم که 54 سال تمام درجا زدیم
این الیناسیون ناشی از تکنولوژی سرمایه داری ماست که ما را از واقعیت روز دور نگه داشت
این شیء شدگی ناشی از فرهنگ غالب بود که از ما انسان تک بعدی ساخت
جمله ای از کتاب:
تحول توسط افرادی شکل خواهد گرفت که وجدانشان از بابت انسان بودن راحت است
چراکه به قول نیچه در دانش شاد:
به یمن آزادی به دست آمده دیگر از خویشتن شرمسار نیستید
جمله انتهایی کتاب:
در میانه قرن بیستم از یک دختر جوان سیاهپوست معترض پرسیدند آزادی میخواهی که چه بکنی؟
پاسخ داد برای نخستین بار در زندگی ام آزاد خواهم بود تا درباره آنچه میخواهم انجام دهم بیاندیشم!
Read
January 27, 2022I can't really rate this work because it would be a bit contradictory. I'd say it's three stars but not because it's good but because it's good at being so bad. I don't mean that Marcuse is a bad writer, far from it, this work is actually pretty well written and is interesting to read. However, the actual content of the work is downright horrible although, given that Marcuse is a Neo-marxist who influenced the creation of Critical Theory as part of the Frankfurt School, which would go on to evolve into the different Critical Theories such as Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory, Queer Theory, etc, this isn't very surprising. Marcuse basically outlines how the New Left of his age, and the ages to come, could fight for liberation from the oppressive society that they currently live in in order to usher in the new liberated society, which unsurprisingly is pretty much just a revamped version of Marx's communist utopia, but without explaining what that society would actually look like and what people in it would actually do. He does give answers to these questions but they're either dodges or straight up non-answers that equate to "we'll figure it out once we get there." I highly recommend the read along done by James Lindsay on his Youtube channel New Discourses as he gives great commentary and explanations which helps readers to better understand just what's going on in this work under all the emotional appeals and intellectual language.
May 21, 2023
Marcuse's An Essay on Liberation is an exhilarating read that builds upon his previous works, specifically "One-Dimensional Man" and "Eros and Civilization." It is perhaps worthwhile reading them prior to this one. While it serves as an amalgamation of both, this book presents a slightly less optimistic tone than his beloved Freudian exploration. Throughout its pages, there are numerous remarkable passages that hold great significance for the emerging left movement and any genuine opposition force. Marcuse emphasizes the importance of adopting his promoted "negative thinking" to challenge and critically reassess Marxian categories, cautioning against the pitfall of fetishizing Marxist theory. Instead, he ardently advocates for the rejection of preconceived solutions and the embrace of a dynamic, Hegelian approach to resistance and alternatives—a true Aufhebung. In a bold closing statement, Marcuse envisions a future that he has long pondered, offering an optimistic outlook: "there is an answer to the question which troubles the minds of so many men of good will: what are the people in a free society going to do? The answer which, I believe, strikes at the heart of the matter was given by a young black girl. She said: for the first time in our life, we shall be free to think about what we are going to do."
November 15, 2024
czytanie Marcuse'go jest jak polityczne otulenie miłym płótnem, bo zawsze znakomicie adresuje wprost problemy systemowego, globalnego kapitalizmu, ale zarazem jest świadomy wielowarstwowej opresji imperialnej, (neo)kolonialnej, rasistowskiej czy płciowej.
czytając większość dziadów frankfurckich przyznajesz im rację w relacji do tez o masowej i współczesnej produkcji kulturowej, ale jesteś zawsze świadom, że trochę przelatuje nad ich dziadowskimi głowami przez ściśle okopaną, negatywną pozycję. a Marcuse pięknie potrafi ująć paradoksalny jej charakter, wykazać wywrotowy potencjał, ale też łatwość wpadnięcia w w ramy ekonomii wzrostu. patrzy w przeszłość wytrwałym, analitycznym i zniuansowanym okiem, ale nigdy nie odwraca się od przyszłości antycypując projekty solidarności, myślenia zmysłowego i nowej wrażliwości.
Marcuse jest pięknym utopistą w czasach, gdy poza Schillerem i Fourierem bano się niepoważności tego słowa.
czytając większość dziadów frankfurckich przyznajesz im rację w relacji do tez o masowej i współczesnej produkcji kulturowej, ale jesteś zawsze świadom, że trochę przelatuje nad ich dziadowskimi głowami przez ściśle okopaną, negatywną pozycję. a Marcuse pięknie potrafi ująć paradoksalny jej charakter, wykazać wywrotowy potencjał, ale też łatwość wpadnięcia w w ramy ekonomii wzrostu. patrzy w przeszłość wytrwałym, analitycznym i zniuansowanym okiem, ale nigdy nie odwraca się od przyszłości antycypując projekty solidarności, myślenia zmysłowego i nowej wrażliwości.
Marcuse jest pięknym utopistą w czasach, gdy poza Schillerem i Fourierem bano się niepoważności tego słowa.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews