What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterrevolution and Revolt
In this book Herbert Marcuse makes clear that capitalism is now reorganizing itself to meet the threat of a revolution that, if realized, would be the most radical of revolutions: the first truly world-historical revolution. Capitalism's counterrevolution, however, is largely preventive, and in the Western world altogether preventive. Yet capitalism is producing its own grave-diggers, and Marcuse suggests that their faces may be very different from those of the wretched of the earth.
The future revolution will be characterized by its enlarged scope, for not only the economic and political structure, not only class relatoins, but also humanity's relation to nature (both human and external nature) tend toward radical transformation. For the author, the "liberation of nature" is the connecting thread between the economic-political and the cultural revolution, between "changing the world" and personal emancipation.
The future revolution will be characterized by its enlarged scope, for not only the economic and political structure, not only class relatoins, but also humanity's relation to nature (both human and external nature) tend toward radical transformation. For the author, the "liberation of nature" is the connecting thread between the economic-political and the cultural revolution, between "changing the world" and personal emancipation.
152 pages, paper
First published November 30, 1971
18 people are currently reading
725 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Marcuse
231 books624 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 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 14, 2017
Begins by noting that capitalism has developed to the point of needing “the organization of a counterrevolution” for its defense, which includes not only “wholesale massacres in Indochina, Indonesia, the Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Sudan” of the left, but also in its extreme moment, the Third Reich (1). Radical students are shot (Kent State, Jackson State); African American leaders are shot (MLK, X, the Panthers); liberal presidents are shot.
Enjoins that socialism must not only “augment the quantity of goods and services in order to abolish all poverty,” but also “must change the quality of existence” regarding the needs to be satisfied and the quantum requisite for satisfaction (3).
Axiomatic that “revolutionary consciousness has always expressed itself only in revolutionary situations,” but now “the condition of the working class in society at large militates against the development of such consciousness”—a standard Frankfurt position (6). Rather, “benefits accorded to the metropolitan working class thanks to surplus profits, neocolonial exploitation, the military budget, and gigantic government subventions” constitute an infrastructural integration of the proletariat into the system that Marxism asks it to overthrow—the class i.e., “has much more to lose than its chains” (id.). This integration at the level of infrastructure is as yet a “surface phenomenon” insofar as “it hides the disintegrating, centrifugal tendencies of which it is itself an expression” (id.): “the monopolistic economy creates conditions and generates needs which threaten to explode the capitalist framework” (id.); “it is the overwhelming wealth of capitalism which will bring about its collapse” (7)—which is a bit more of an orthodox position. The rationale here is that “the established system preserves itself only through the global destruction of resources, of nature, of human life, and the objective conditions for making an end to it prevail” (7)—which reminds one of Dutt’s prediction in Fascism and Social Revolution about the Third Reich. The ‘objective conditions’ are fairly obvious: “a social wealth sufficient to abolish poverty; the technical know-how to develop the available resources systematically toward this goal; a ruling class which wastes, arrests, and annihilates the productive forces; the growth of anticapitalist forces which reduce the reservoir of exploitation; and a vast working class” (id.).
The significance of ‘working class’ is to be expanded: quoting Capital, Marcuse notes that “’the concept of productive labor is necessarily enlarged,’ and with it the concept of the productive worker […] The change is not merely quantitative” (13)—“the enlarged universe of exploitation is a totality of machines—human, economic, political, military, educational [shades of D&G’s ‘machinic assemblages’ there?]. It is controlled by a hierarchy of ever more specialized ‘professional’ managers, politicians, generals” (id.). We see Neumann’s thesis from the Behemoth that “at the base of the pyramid atomization prevails” (14). We also see shades of Foucauldian biopolitics with statements such as “Capital now produces, for the majority of the population in the metropoles, not so much material privation as steered satisfaction of needs, while making the entire human being—intelligence and senses—into an object of administration [NB: the agambenian language from HS V], geared to produce and reproduce not only the goods but also the values and promises of the system” (14). It is all false consciousness (or Sloterdijk’s enlightened false consciousness, perhaps): “behind the technological veil, behind the political veil of democracy, appears the reality [still as yet dialectical unmasking], the universal servitude, the loss of human dignity in a prefabricated freedom of choice [cf. Agamben on dignity, and on Kant, of course]” (id.). Regarding the ‘veil of democracy,’ “a president is sold like an automobile, and it seems hopelessly old-fashioned to judge his political statements in terms of their truth or falsehood—what validates them is their vote-keeping or vote-getting quality” (15)—which seems perfectly descriptive of the 2016 election.
Regarding the wealth of capitalism as its gravedigger, we find that “the emergence of transcendent needs operate behind the back of the capitalist managers, and they are generated by the mode of production itself” to the extent that the “growing productivity of labor, accompanied by a declining use of human labor power” necessitates the internal expansion of the market, the counterpart to external imperialism” (18-19). That is, as productivity increases but the workforce decreases, who the fuck is buying all the crap churned out by robot factories?
The argument walks through the now familiar critiques of the system (declining real wages, consumerism, and so on). However: “’consumer society’ is a misnomer of the first order, for rarely has a society so systematically been organized in the interests which control production” (23). This is not fascism, and, even if it were, “history does not repeat itself exactly, and a higher stage of capitalistic development in the United States would call for a higher stage of fascism” (25).
That said, “the potential mass base for social change may well become the mass base for fascism,” quoting a journalist thereafter for the now very fucking reasonable proposition that “we may well be the first people to go Fascist by the democratic vote” (id.). Liberalism and fascism are related via the conjunction “liberal democracy is the face of the propertied classes when they are not afraid, fascism when they are afraid” (id.). On this basis, author diagnoses a “proto-fascist syndrome,” which includes the things already mentioned, but also an anecdote about some Darwin Award winning parent who believed that the Kent State kids deserved to be shot, even if her own son were there (27): “we’ve got to clean up this nation And we’ll start with the long-hairs.” Prisons, the normalization of war and war crimes, and so on are “a frightening reservoir of violence in everyday life” and “indicates a proto-fascist potential” (28).
Some salient internal critique of the left here, such as “petrified rhetoric” as “false consciousness” (29) and the “Falsification of Marxian theory through its ritualization” (33). Also, the left has always been divided as a matter of structural necessity, whereas “the defenders of the status quo” have a tangible interest compelling their unity (36). The left might on occasion enact a “fetishism of labor” (38). AS far as the old orthodox position goes,
Regards direct democracy as “an essential demand of leftist strategy” (45), which is cool. Also wants to “eliminate the need for production of waste and planned obsolescence” (46). Critiques of “the new individualism” (“private rebellion”) (48) and “objective ambivalence” (49).
The second chapter concerns some ecological argument, with which I am somewhat enervated. Some Kantian arguments here (66 ff). Third chapter concerns ‘art and revolution’ (79 ff), with which I am in partial disagreement, such as his notion that the continued relevance of ancient and medieval texts testifies to their revelation of the “human condition” as well as their responsiveness to certain “constant qualities” (87)—whereas my position is that the texts produce the consciousness in their readers requisite for their own reception: the text is a product that nevertheless labors upon the mind.
Anyway, “permanent aesthetic subversion—this is the way of art” (107).
Recommended for those who fight against pollution as a way of life, harbingers of a fully developed fascist system, and readers who confuse the psychological and ontological realm.
Enjoins that socialism must not only “augment the quantity of goods and services in order to abolish all poverty,” but also “must change the quality of existence” regarding the needs to be satisfied and the quantum requisite for satisfaction (3).
Axiomatic that “revolutionary consciousness has always expressed itself only in revolutionary situations,” but now “the condition of the working class in society at large militates against the development of such consciousness”—a standard Frankfurt position (6). Rather, “benefits accorded to the metropolitan working class thanks to surplus profits, neocolonial exploitation, the military budget, and gigantic government subventions” constitute an infrastructural integration of the proletariat into the system that Marxism asks it to overthrow—the class i.e., “has much more to lose than its chains” (id.). This integration at the level of infrastructure is as yet a “surface phenomenon” insofar as “it hides the disintegrating, centrifugal tendencies of which it is itself an expression” (id.): “the monopolistic economy creates conditions and generates needs which threaten to explode the capitalist framework” (id.); “it is the overwhelming wealth of capitalism which will bring about its collapse” (7)—which is a bit more of an orthodox position. The rationale here is that “the established system preserves itself only through the global destruction of resources, of nature, of human life, and the objective conditions for making an end to it prevail” (7)—which reminds one of Dutt’s prediction in Fascism and Social Revolution about the Third Reich. The ‘objective conditions’ are fairly obvious: “a social wealth sufficient to abolish poverty; the technical know-how to develop the available resources systematically toward this goal; a ruling class which wastes, arrests, and annihilates the productive forces; the growth of anticapitalist forces which reduce the reservoir of exploitation; and a vast working class” (id.).
The significance of ‘working class’ is to be expanded: quoting Capital, Marcuse notes that “’the concept of productive labor is necessarily enlarged,’ and with it the concept of the productive worker […] The change is not merely quantitative” (13)—“the enlarged universe of exploitation is a totality of machines—human, economic, political, military, educational [shades of D&G’s ‘machinic assemblages’ there?]. It is controlled by a hierarchy of ever more specialized ‘professional’ managers, politicians, generals” (id.). We see Neumann’s thesis from the Behemoth that “at the base of the pyramid atomization prevails” (14). We also see shades of Foucauldian biopolitics with statements such as “Capital now produces, for the majority of the population in the metropoles, not so much material privation as steered satisfaction of needs, while making the entire human being—intelligence and senses—into an object of administration [NB: the agambenian language from HS V], geared to produce and reproduce not only the goods but also the values and promises of the system” (14). It is all false consciousness (or Sloterdijk’s enlightened false consciousness, perhaps): “behind the technological veil, behind the political veil of democracy, appears the reality [still as yet dialectical unmasking], the universal servitude, the loss of human dignity in a prefabricated freedom of choice [cf. Agamben on dignity, and on Kant, of course]” (id.). Regarding the ‘veil of democracy,’ “a president is sold like an automobile, and it seems hopelessly old-fashioned to judge his political statements in terms of their truth or falsehood—what validates them is their vote-keeping or vote-getting quality” (15)—which seems perfectly descriptive of the 2016 election.
Regarding the wealth of capitalism as its gravedigger, we find that “the emergence of transcendent needs operate behind the back of the capitalist managers, and they are generated by the mode of production itself” to the extent that the “growing productivity of labor, accompanied by a declining use of human labor power” necessitates the internal expansion of the market, the counterpart to external imperialism” (18-19). That is, as productivity increases but the workforce decreases, who the fuck is buying all the crap churned out by robot factories?
The argument walks through the now familiar critiques of the system (declining real wages, consumerism, and so on). However: “’consumer society’ is a misnomer of the first order, for rarely has a society so systematically been organized in the interests which control production” (23). This is not fascism, and, even if it were, “history does not repeat itself exactly, and a higher stage of capitalistic development in the United States would call for a higher stage of fascism” (25).
That said, “the potential mass base for social change may well become the mass base for fascism,” quoting a journalist thereafter for the now very fucking reasonable proposition that “we may well be the first people to go Fascist by the democratic vote” (id.). Liberalism and fascism are related via the conjunction “liberal democracy is the face of the propertied classes when they are not afraid, fascism when they are afraid” (id.). On this basis, author diagnoses a “proto-fascist syndrome,” which includes the things already mentioned, but also an anecdote about some Darwin Award winning parent who believed that the Kent State kids deserved to be shot, even if her own son were there (27): “we’ve got to clean up this nation And we’ll start with the long-hairs.” Prisons, the normalization of war and war crimes, and so on are “a frightening reservoir of violence in everyday life” and “indicates a proto-fascist potential” (28).
Some salient internal critique of the left here, such as “petrified rhetoric” as “false consciousness” (29) and the “Falsification of Marxian theory through its ritualization” (33). Also, the left has always been divided as a matter of structural necessity, whereas “the defenders of the status quo” have a tangible interest compelling their unity (36). The left might on occasion enact a “fetishism of labor” (38). AS far as the old orthodox position goes,
if the working class no is no longer this ‘absolute negation’ of the existing society, if it has become a class in this society, sharing its needs and aspirations, then the transfer of power to the working class alone (no matter in what form) does not assure the transition to socialism as a qualitatively different society. The working class itself must change if it is to become the power that effects this transition. (39)Otherwise, author recommends against ‘seizure of power’ as a radical goal in the advanced cappie states, mostly because “concentration of overwhelming military and police power” and the “reformist consciousness among the working classes” (43).
Regards direct democracy as “an essential demand of leftist strategy” (45), which is cool. Also wants to “eliminate the need for production of waste and planned obsolescence” (46). Critiques of “the new individualism” (“private rebellion”) (48) and “objective ambivalence” (49).
The second chapter concerns some ecological argument, with which I am somewhat enervated. Some Kantian arguments here (66 ff). Third chapter concerns ‘art and revolution’ (79 ff), with which I am in partial disagreement, such as his notion that the continued relevance of ancient and medieval texts testifies to their revelation of the “human condition” as well as their responsiveness to certain “constant qualities” (87)—whereas my position is that the texts produce the consciousness in their readers requisite for their own reception: the text is a product that nevertheless labors upon the mind.
Anyway, “permanent aesthetic subversion—this is the way of art” (107).
Recommended for those who fight against pollution as a way of life, harbingers of a fully developed fascist system, and readers who confuse the psychological and ontological realm.
Read
February 27, 2023Standard Marcuse stuff herein, some compelling and well-observed points, some kind of uninteresting. The book consists of essentially three interconnected essays.
The first concerns the way in which "Capitalism reorganizes itself to meet the threat of a revolution which would be the most radical of all historical revolutions. It would be the first truly world-historical revolution." (p. 2) This reorganisation results in the various wars in Asia, as well as domestic conflicts (including the killings in Jackson State and Kent State mentioned in page one.)
Marcuse goes on to elaborate that the nature of the revolution against capitalism is going to be of a completely new nature etc etc., and the predominant purpose of this book is finding the base of this revolution in a largely different class-basis than what was observed by Marx. The "inner dynamic of capitalism changes, with the changes in its structure, the pattern of revolution: far from reducing, it extends the potential mass base for revolution, and it necessitates the revival of the radical rather than minimum goals of socialism. (...) Here I shall try, on the basis of this material, only to focus the discussion on the prospects for radical change in the United States." (p.5)
Marcuse asks further on, "Will the consumer society be (Capitalism's) last stage, its gravedigger?" (p. 7) I can answer him affirmatively: no.
Marcuse waxes on about the nature of a socialist revolution, a lot of invocation of the same metaphor of "quantitative to qualitative change" (a bit of a stylistic crutch if you ask me), but he does make interesting observations here and there. Reminiscent of Deleuze for instance, he mentions at "base of the pyramid atomization prevails. It converts the entire individual--body and mind--into an instrument, or even part of an instrument: active or passive, productive or receptive, in working time and free time, he serves the system. The technical division of labor divides the human being itself into partial operations and functions, coordinated by the coordinators of the capitalist process."(p. 14) The class nature of the proletariat has changed sufficiently like the Dividuals in the Postscript to the Society of Control. This change in the nature of the proletariat is also reminiscent of the argument presented in The Wandering of Humanity in the sense that the proletariat is in some way absorbed by Capitalist forces, it no longer constitutes a revolutionary force for Camatte (Marcuse is much more optimistic toward the end with regard to aesthetics.)
Other expected Marcuse-isms include: creation of needs expressing the dynamic of the domination of capital (p. 16); government subsidies reinforcing capital, links to fascism (p. 22, 25); use of "barbarism" reminiscent of Luxembourg but distinctly Frankfurtian (is that a word?) (p. 29); etc.
The second chapter concerns "nature", this is meant both of the natural world, ecology, as well as of man. A lot is invoked here, Kant, Marx, as well as subtle Lukacsian points concerning nature as a "historical" category (p. 60). There are some odd Freudian remarks regarding a free society being the negation of a "male society":
which I frankly don't know what to make of, but it is more colourful than the first chapter.
Third chapter is the best of the book. Some interesting comments regard language such as vulgar expletives like "shit" and "fuck". Marcuse's analysis is Freudian but shores up a legitimate concern:
Though I am not sure this self-punishment (castration?) is legitimately observed, the unexamined taking over of facile, aggressive, expletives only serves to reinforce a kind of bourgeois morality. That x thing is "shit" is less of a radical comment, analectic rupture in the system or whatever, and moreso an implicit reinforcement of the very thing it ciriticises. Though Marcuse is softly critical of him later, it would seem that Ginsberg is the most transformative of this in this sense. Ginsberg's honest depictions of anal sex as a zone of pleasure, political revolt, and so forth (as well as more personal reflections including shame, guilt, also happiness, excitement) display the transformation of these expletives.
Marcuse intervenes in the Marxist debates of the early 20th century regarding aesthetic forms by criticising the shared assumption of a proletarian world-view (p. 123). Which is made pertinent in a reply to Irvin Silber in the Guardian who wishes to highlight proletarian interests in a "washing machine" and what it can do for the working-class family (p. 126). Marcuse charges this as reactive not just from "an artistic but also from a political point of view. Regressive are, not the emotions of the working class family, but the idea to make them into a standard for authentic radical and socialist literature: what is proclaimed to be the focal point of a revolutionary new culture is in face the adjustment to the established one," which seems to me an entirely fair point. He links this to Lukacs who writes of the "workers' novel" that discussions at the dinner table of a working family reads with the same language as "delegate(s) at a party meeting." (p. 127).
So what is the conclusion in the aesthetic realm? It is that, "The most extreme political content does not repel traditional forms." (128.)
Overall, a fast book, fairly accessible, well-written. Probably a little overly-polemical (willy-nilly use of foreign intervention to display the evils of capitalism always strikes me as a bit uncritical, it can be used, but needs to be more detailed a la Chomsky), but some insights are well-placed. It's alright.
The first concerns the way in which "Capitalism reorganizes itself to meet the threat of a revolution which would be the most radical of all historical revolutions. It would be the first truly world-historical revolution." (p. 2) This reorganisation results in the various wars in Asia, as well as domestic conflicts (including the killings in Jackson State and Kent State mentioned in page one.)
Marcuse goes on to elaborate that the nature of the revolution against capitalism is going to be of a completely new nature etc etc., and the predominant purpose of this book is finding the base of this revolution in a largely different class-basis than what was observed by Marx. The "inner dynamic of capitalism changes, with the changes in its structure, the pattern of revolution: far from reducing, it extends the potential mass base for revolution, and it necessitates the revival of the radical rather than minimum goals of socialism. (...) Here I shall try, on the basis of this material, only to focus the discussion on the prospects for radical change in the United States." (p.5)
Marcuse asks further on, "Will the consumer society be (Capitalism's) last stage, its gravedigger?" (p. 7) I can answer him affirmatively: no.
Marcuse waxes on about the nature of a socialist revolution, a lot of invocation of the same metaphor of "quantitative to qualitative change" (a bit of a stylistic crutch if you ask me), but he does make interesting observations here and there. Reminiscent of Deleuze for instance, he mentions at "base of the pyramid atomization prevails. It converts the entire individual--body and mind--into an instrument, or even part of an instrument: active or passive, productive or receptive, in working time and free time, he serves the system. The technical division of labor divides the human being itself into partial operations and functions, coordinated by the coordinators of the capitalist process."(p. 14) The class nature of the proletariat has changed sufficiently like the Dividuals in the Postscript to the Society of Control. This change in the nature of the proletariat is also reminiscent of the argument presented in The Wandering of Humanity in the sense that the proletariat is in some way absorbed by Capitalist forces, it no longer constitutes a revolutionary force for Camatte (Marcuse is much more optimistic toward the end with regard to aesthetics.)
Other expected Marcuse-isms include: creation of needs expressing the dynamic of the domination of capital (p. 16); government subsidies reinforcing capital, links to fascism (p. 22, 25); use of "barbarism" reminiscent of Luxembourg but distinctly Frankfurtian (is that a word?) (p. 29); etc.
The second chapter concerns "nature", this is meant both of the natural world, ecology, as well as of man. A lot is invoked here, Kant, Marx, as well as subtle Lukacsian points concerning nature as a "historical" category (p. 60). There are some odd Freudian remarks regarding a free society being the negation of a "male society":
" a female society. In this sense, it has nothing to do with matriarchy of any sort; the image of the woman as mother is itself repressive; it transforms a biological fact into an ethical and cultural value and thus it supports and justifies her social repression. At stake is rather the ascent of Eros over aggression, in men and women; and this means, in a male-dominated civilization, the "femalization" of the male. It would express the decisive change in the instinctual structure: the weakening of primary aggressiveness which, by a combination of biological and social factors, has governed the patriarchal culture." (p. 75)
which I frankly don't know what to make of, but it is more colourful than the first chapter.
Third chapter is the best of the book. Some interesting comments regard language such as vulgar expletives like "shit" and "fuck". Marcuse's analysis is Freudian but shores up a legitimate concern:
"...standardized obscene language is repressive desublimation: facile (though vicarious) gratification of aggressiveness. It turns easily against sexuality itself. (...) If a radical says, 'Fuck Nixon,' he associates the word for highest genital gratification with the highest representatives of the oppressive Establishment, and 'shit' for the products of the Enemy takes over the bourgeois rejection of anal eroticism. In this (totally unconscious) debasement of sexuality, the radical seems to punish himself for his lack of power; his language is losing its political impact." (p. 80-81).
Though I am not sure this self-punishment (castration?) is legitimately observed, the unexamined taking over of facile, aggressive, expletives only serves to reinforce a kind of bourgeois morality. That x thing is "shit" is less of a radical comment, analectic rupture in the system or whatever, and moreso an implicit reinforcement of the very thing it ciriticises. Though Marcuse is softly critical of him later, it would seem that Ginsberg is the most transformative of this in this sense. Ginsberg's honest depictions of anal sex as a zone of pleasure, political revolt, and so forth (as well as more personal reflections including shame, guilt, also happiness, excitement) display the transformation of these expletives.
Marcuse intervenes in the Marxist debates of the early 20th century regarding aesthetic forms by criticising the shared assumption of a proletarian world-view (p. 123). Which is made pertinent in a reply to Irvin Silber in the Guardian who wishes to highlight proletarian interests in a "washing machine" and what it can do for the working-class family (p. 126). Marcuse charges this as reactive not just from "an artistic but also from a political point of view. Regressive are, not the emotions of the working class family, but the idea to make them into a standard for authentic radical and socialist literature: what is proclaimed to be the focal point of a revolutionary new culture is in face the adjustment to the established one," which seems to me an entirely fair point. He links this to Lukacs who writes of the "workers' novel" that discussions at the dinner table of a working family reads with the same language as "delegate(s) at a party meeting." (p. 127).
So what is the conclusion in the aesthetic realm? It is that, "The most extreme political content does not repel traditional forms." (128.)
Overall, a fast book, fairly accessible, well-written. Probably a little overly-polemical (willy-nilly use of foreign intervention to display the evils of capitalism always strikes me as a bit uncritical, it can be used, but needs to be more detailed a la Chomsky), but some insights are well-placed. It's alright.
March 27, 2011
First off the description of "Dialectal stories and poems by New York City black and Spanish-speaking children edited from tape recordings taken in the classroom" is incorrect. This is a book examining the necessarily counter-revolutionary aspect of economic systems--though it seems to consider capitalism the evil and leaves socialism unexamined perhaps stemming from an immediacy of writing within a capitalism-associating society.
It examines art as a possibility of revolt so long as the issue isn't confused by attempting an affirmative art ("proletarian art" as well as "commodity (bourgeois) art" are defined as propaganda, which I think is a fair assessment in terms of the argument). Following this, Art negates; refusing the immediate, the society form which it sprang, by transforming characters, attributes, whatever to universals. This transcendent character makes Art incapable of affirming a society, excepting the possibility of a transcendent (classless?) future society, though it is firmly between the lines that this potential society will remain only potential.
I think the most interesting parts for me were the occasional discussion of the re-appropriation of the offensive, of the subcultural as marketable and thus affirming the structures they would seem to protest. I'm not done chewing on that, but I think it's a worthwhile assertion, and a challenge: How does one create something to combat or make impossible this appropriation?
It examines art as a possibility of revolt so long as the issue isn't confused by attempting an affirmative art ("proletarian art" as well as "commodity (bourgeois) art" are defined as propaganda, which I think is a fair assessment in terms of the argument). Following this, Art negates; refusing the immediate, the society form which it sprang, by transforming characters, attributes, whatever to universals. This transcendent character makes Art incapable of affirming a society, excepting the possibility of a transcendent (classless?) future society, though it is firmly between the lines that this potential society will remain only potential.
I think the most interesting parts for me were the occasional discussion of the re-appropriation of the offensive, of the subcultural as marketable and thus affirming the structures they would seem to protest. I'm not done chewing on that, but I think it's a worthwhile assertion, and a challenge: How does one create something to combat or make impossible this appropriation?
Read
January 6, 2023ﻴﺨﻠﺹ ﻤﺎﺭﻜﻭﺯ ﺇلى ﺍلجزم ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺤﺎلة ﺍلثورة ﻀﻤﻥ ﺍلشرﻭﻁ ﺍلتي ﻴﺴﻤﺢ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺍلمجتمع ﺍلصناعي ﺍلمتقدم، ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍلشرﻭﻁ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ ﺍلتي ﻴﻌﻜﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻭﻓﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻤﺩﺍ، ﻭﻴﺒﻘﻲ ﻤﺎﺭﻜﻭﺯ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺍلتغيير ﻗﺎﺌﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﺘﻭﻓﺭ ﺍلمناخ ﺍلملائم، لذلك ﻗﺎل ﺒﺈﺭﺠﺎﺀ ﺍلثورة، ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻴﻔﺘﻘﺩ ﺇلى ﺍلوﻋﻲ ﺍلثوﺭﻱ ﺍللازﻡ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺃﻀﺤﻰ ﺘﺸﻜﻴﻼ ﻁﻴﻌﺎ ﻻ ﻴﻘﻭﻯ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍلخضوﻉ لمبدأ ﺍلوﺍﻗﻊ ﺍلقاﺌﻡ، ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻀﺤﻰ ﻭﻋﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻅل ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍلمتناﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﺠﺯﺍ ﻋﻥ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍلحقيقي ﻤﻥ ﺍلزائف، ﺇﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇلى ﺫلك ﻓﺎلفعل ﺍلثوﺭﻱ ﻓﻌل ﺤﺭﻴﺔ، ﻓﻜﻴﻑ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺤﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻨﺠﺯ ﻋﻤﻼ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺎ ﺘﺤﺭﺭﻴﺎ ؟ ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﻜﺩ ﻤﺎﺭﻜﻭﺯ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍلمجتمع ﺍلصناعي ﻴﺘﻭﻫﻡ ﺍلحرية، ﻭﺃﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﻴﺸﻪ ليس ﺇﻻ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺩﻋﺔ ﻭﺒﺎﺌﺴﺔ، ﻓﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ذلك ﻴﻤﺘﺩ ليمنع ﺤﺼﻭل ﺍلثورة ﻭﺍلتغييرﺍلجذرﻱ للأﻭﻀﺎﻉ ﺍلتي ﻓﻘﺩﺕ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻤﺒﺭﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ، ﻭلعل ﺍلحلقة ﺍلمفقوﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍلمعادلة ﻫﻲ ﺇﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺍلثوﺭﺓ ﺍلذﻱ ﺘﻡ ﺘﻐﻴﺒﻪ ﻋﻤﺩﺍ، ﻜﻤﺎ ﺘﻡ ﻤﻨﻊ ﺍلعوﺍﻤل ﺍلذﺍﺘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍلموﻀﻭﻋﻴﺔ ﺍلتي ﺘﺤﺩﺙ ﺜﻭﺭﺓ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻜل ﺍلزﻴﻑ ﺍلذي لحق الوﺠﻭﺩ الفردي الجماعي.
October 17, 2012
The first chapter of this was a fantastic elaboration on why the New Left was failing, and the forces counteracting against revolution. Very pragmatic and to the point. The other two chapters were philosophical bullshit of the worst degree, they looked like something that would be at home in a postmodernist/poststructuralist work, I still have no idea what the point of either of them was, one was vague ideas about art and revolution and the other, vague ideas about nature and revolution. Nothing of value in the later chapters of this.
November 20, 2024
Pierwszy esej jest zgrabny, ale brakuje mu konkretnego kręgosłupa i krąży w zbytnich ogólnikach, nie zawężając się do określonego tematu, ale dwa kolejne: o rewolucji i naturze oraz rewolucji i sztuce to Marcuse w najlepszym wydaniu
October 30, 2018
i think marcuse was one of the first to understand the backlash to the 60s & the crisis of the 70s.
also very interesting because he read bookchin
also very interesting because he read bookchin
November 5, 2024
Not his most clear work
July 2, 2019
The teenage tantrum guide. For all ages.
Much of the error present in this book might be solved through the understanding of the seeming paradox between authoritarianism and authority. Teenager, what's your authority to defy the authority of truth? Opposing truth is not the pathway towards liberation. Today's liberator is tomorrow's dictator.
A "gem" of this book:
'The Leftist slogan "power to the people." The "people" meant here are not those who today sustain the bourgeois democracy: the voters, the taxpayers, the large number of those who express their opinion in the letters to the editor which are deemed fit to print. These people, though by no means sovereign in any sense, exercise considerable power already, as the constituencies of the rulers, as a derivative power, dependent on the rulers. "Power to the people" does not mean the (anything but "silent") majority of the population as it existstoday; it means a minority-the victims of this majority, those who perhaps don't even vote, don't pay taxes because they have nothing to be taxed, those in the prisons and jails, those who do not write letters to the editor which get printed.'
It's so sad to see how the relativistic nonsense and the victimism distortion have become so widespread. There's truth and personal freedom. And, no, not everything is a social construction.
Much of the error present in this book might be solved through the understanding of the seeming paradox between authoritarianism and authority. Teenager, what's your authority to defy the authority of truth? Opposing truth is not the pathway towards liberation. Today's liberator is tomorrow's dictator.
A "gem" of this book:
'The Leftist slogan "power to the people." The "people" meant here are not those who today sustain the bourgeois democracy: the voters, the taxpayers, the large number of those who express their opinion in the letters to the editor which are deemed fit to print. These people, though by no means sovereign in any sense, exercise considerable power already, as the constituencies of the rulers, as a derivative power, dependent on the rulers. "Power to the people" does not mean the (anything but "silent") majority of the population as it existstoday; it means a minority-the victims of this majority, those who perhaps don't even vote, don't pay taxes because they have nothing to be taxed, those in the prisons and jails, those who do not write letters to the editor which get printed.'
It's so sad to see how the relativistic nonsense and the victimism distortion have become so widespread. There's truth and personal freedom. And, no, not everything is a social construction.
August 15, 2019
Herbert Marcuse firmly believed in the possibility of a revolution despite the failure of the new left to enact it effectively. With Counterrevolution and Revolt, he seeks to untangle the anti-intellectual framework pervading American culture. For Marcuse, no real change would occur without an overcoming of the irrationality that existed within one-dimensional thinking. In addition to that, liberation was dependent on the revolutions incorporation of values desired by the unfree society. In doing so, the whole is considered when taking revolutionary action and subsequently opens up the possibility for overcoming the repressive elements within capitalist society.
April 15, 2016
An exploration of tactical politics in the Nixon era, from the perspective of activists on the left. Not a lot of interesting theory here, and the use of the Maoist term "the long march", where Marcuse advocates a "long march" through the mainstream institutions of society, is somewhat disturbing. Still, some little shiny bits in this one make it worth reading.
December 20, 2014
Read when I was young. I guess I am still young and the book kept it marvel
January 2, 2015
When he's not rehearsing the same arguments as One Dimensional Man, he's becoming increasingly despondent about the prospects of the New Left.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews