What do you think?
Rate this book
Critique of Marcuse: one-dimensional man in class society
Paperback in acceptable condition. Label remnant to front cover and page block is foxed. Pages from the cover up until page 30 are loose, but present. Previous owner's name penned to page opposite title page. Pages and text are clear and unmarked throughout. LW
110 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
2 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
About the author
Paul Mattick
57 books48 followersPaul Mattick, Sr. (March 13, 1904 – February 7, 1981) was a Marxist political writer and social revolutionary, whose thought can be placed within the council communist and left communist traditions.
Father of author Paul Mattick Jr..
Father of author Paul Mattick Jr..
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 24, 2017
Mattick's critique is based on Marx's labor theory of value, and he extends this framework into cold war situation of "free world" vs. "socialist block", stating that these are essentially two different, bur comparable ways of organising the industry by way of State support. "One Dimensional Man" that Marcuse sees as prevalent subjectivity formation in modern world all-over, is critiqued by Mattick as outlawing the possibility of revolution. As Mattick is sceptical about the current possibilities of organising working class for "another wave" of revolutionary motion, he re-iterates that the possibility of revolution rests on it being improbable. In this he resembles the philosophical Left of the 21st century, namely Critchley and Zizek, who also make a number out of the "possibility of the impossible". That being said, compared to those writers, Mattick's approach is much more firmly couched in the reading of Das Kapital, which makes him not to waver as he anchors the value form of Capitalism in the exploitation of the surplus work. Here lies his basic argument against Marcuse, who sees automation and proliferation of leisure time as key to true society of abundance. Since Mattick holds that as long as the value form basic to our society is born out of non-symmetrical relationship between those who sell their labour force (in form of time) and those who buy it and in organising the production exploit the surplus time (in form of money), automation, consumption or proliferation of life styles (this implication being mine) can never essentially change the equation. Here I think Mattick has a strong point, and this should emphasised. For all kinds of Utopianisms (techno- and otherwise), Mattick's treatment works as a sobering tonic. Because Mattick sees the shape of Capitalism born from contradiction, that has not been - indeed, cannot be - overturned by providing more liberties and monied existence for the workers, his view concerning revolutionary change is bleak, but unlike later Frankfurt school, for him it's not a shut door. Reading this little book now, nearly 50 years after it's inscription written in 1972, I was struck by its resilient force and untimely timeliness. In fact it's tenor reminded me of China Mieville's book on centenary of 1917 Russian Revolution, "October", as both of these authors "confront a Darkening world" (phrase of Adorno's) with the burning necessity of revolution.
October 15, 2024
A REJECTION OF HERBERT MARCUSE COMING FROM A MARXIST
Author Paul Mattick has written other books such as 'Business as Usual: The Economic Crisis and the Failure of Capitalism,' 'Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy,' 'Art In Its Time: Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics,' 'Anti-Bolshevik Communism,' 'Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation,' etc.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1972 book, “It is clear that Marcuse is not realistically describing existing conditions but rather observable TENDENCIES within these conditions. In his view, it is the unchallenged unfolding of the potentialities of the present system which SEEMS to lead into the completely integrated totalitarian society. Preventing this development, Marcuse says, would now require that the oppressed classes ‘liberate themselves from themselves as well as from their masters.’ To transcend established conditions presupposes transcendence WITHIN these conditions, a feat denied one-dimensional man in one-dimensional society. And thus Marcuse concludes that ‘the critical theory of society possesses no concepts which could bridge the gap between the present and the future; holding no promise and showing no success, it remains negative.’ In other words, the critical theory---or Marxism---is now merely a beau geste [a futile gesture].” (Pg. 8-9)
He observes, “Marcuse’s statement that ‘Marx did not foresee technologically-advanced society’ is hardly justifiable in view of Marx’s projection of social development toward the ‘abolition of labor’ through the unfolding of the social forces of production, which include science and technology. But it is true that Marx did not believe that much in this direction could be done within the confines of capitalism, which was an additional reason for calling for its abolition.” (Pg. 27)
He states, “Whereas future events may prove Marcuse right in his pessimism with respect to the chances of a working-class revolution, his ‘optimism’ with regard to capitalism’s ability to save itself by technological and political means will most probably be disproved by actual developments. At the present, of course, Marcuse’s assertion can only be answered by a counter-assertion. In view of what has happened since the end of the second world war, it would appear that capitalism has found a way to escape the perils of its class structure, and has been able to transform itself in a society freed of effective opposition. Marcuse’s ‘optimism’ in this respect, it should be repeated, is not at all to his own liking; he accepts it only grudgingly in order to free himself of all illusions.” (Pg. 43)
He observes, “In a ‘democracy,’ it is not entirely inconceivable that a government may come to power committed to the slow or rapid nationalization of industry. Such a government would be a revolutionary, anti-capitalist government, in so far as capitalism is identified with private ownership of the means of production. In order to realize its programme, it would be forced to replace the market system by a planning system, so as to enable itself centrally to allocate productive resources and to organize production and distribution on a non-competitive basis.
"As far as the capitalists are concerned, it would be their death-warrant, and it is not easily conceivable that they would accept it without protest. Most likely, the nationalization of industry would lead to civil war. It is fear of the social consequences of an extensive nationalization which prevents those ideologically committed to it from actually attempting its realization.” (Pg. 64-65)
He argues, “Capitalism is basically a two-class society, notwithstanding the various status differentiations within each separate class. The ruling class is the decision-making class. The ruling class is the decision-making class; the other class, regardless of its inner differentiations, is at the mercy of these decisions, which determine the general conditions of society, even though they are formed with a view to the special needs of capital. The ruling class cannot act other than it does; that is, stupidly or intelligently, it will do everything to perpetuate itself as a ruling class. Those outside the decision-making process may disagree with the decisions made, as they may not correspond with their own interests, or because of convictions that things should be done differently. But to affect or change these decisions they must have power of their own.” (Pg. 96)
He concludes, “an apathetic working class under certain conditions can become an aroused working class under different conditions… it may in all likelihood be the first to break with the one-dimensional ideology of capitalist rule. But again, there is no certainty. There is only chance---as Marcuse remarks… But it is only a chance … because capital may destroy the world before an opportunity arises to stay its hands. Integration in death is the only integration really given to capitalism.
"Short of this final integration, one-dimensional man will not last for long. He will disappear at the first breakdown of the capitalist economy---in the bloodbaths the capitalist order is now preparing for him. Capitalism, at the height of its powers is also at its most vulnerable; it has nowhere to go but to its death. However small the chances are for revolt, this is not the time to throw in the towel.” (Pg. 106-107)
At least as much about Mattick’s own ideas as it is about Marcuse’s, this book may interest some looking for criticism of Marcuse’s ideas.
Author Paul Mattick has written other books such as 'Business as Usual: The Economic Crisis and the Failure of Capitalism,' 'Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy,' 'Art In Its Time: Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics,' 'Anti-Bolshevik Communism,' 'Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation,' etc.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1972 book, “It is clear that Marcuse is not realistically describing existing conditions but rather observable TENDENCIES within these conditions. In his view, it is the unchallenged unfolding of the potentialities of the present system which SEEMS to lead into the completely integrated totalitarian society. Preventing this development, Marcuse says, would now require that the oppressed classes ‘liberate themselves from themselves as well as from their masters.’ To transcend established conditions presupposes transcendence WITHIN these conditions, a feat denied one-dimensional man in one-dimensional society. And thus Marcuse concludes that ‘the critical theory of society possesses no concepts which could bridge the gap between the present and the future; holding no promise and showing no success, it remains negative.’ In other words, the critical theory---or Marxism---is now merely a beau geste [a futile gesture].” (Pg. 8-9)
He observes, “Marcuse’s statement that ‘Marx did not foresee technologically-advanced society’ is hardly justifiable in view of Marx’s projection of social development toward the ‘abolition of labor’ through the unfolding of the social forces of production, which include science and technology. But it is true that Marx did not believe that much in this direction could be done within the confines of capitalism, which was an additional reason for calling for its abolition.” (Pg. 27)
He states, “Whereas future events may prove Marcuse right in his pessimism with respect to the chances of a working-class revolution, his ‘optimism’ with regard to capitalism’s ability to save itself by technological and political means will most probably be disproved by actual developments. At the present, of course, Marcuse’s assertion can only be answered by a counter-assertion. In view of what has happened since the end of the second world war, it would appear that capitalism has found a way to escape the perils of its class structure, and has been able to transform itself in a society freed of effective opposition. Marcuse’s ‘optimism’ in this respect, it should be repeated, is not at all to his own liking; he accepts it only grudgingly in order to free himself of all illusions.” (Pg. 43)
He observes, “In a ‘democracy,’ it is not entirely inconceivable that a government may come to power committed to the slow or rapid nationalization of industry. Such a government would be a revolutionary, anti-capitalist government, in so far as capitalism is identified with private ownership of the means of production. In order to realize its programme, it would be forced to replace the market system by a planning system, so as to enable itself centrally to allocate productive resources and to organize production and distribution on a non-competitive basis.
"As far as the capitalists are concerned, it would be their death-warrant, and it is not easily conceivable that they would accept it without protest. Most likely, the nationalization of industry would lead to civil war. It is fear of the social consequences of an extensive nationalization which prevents those ideologically committed to it from actually attempting its realization.” (Pg. 64-65)
He argues, “Capitalism is basically a two-class society, notwithstanding the various status differentiations within each separate class. The ruling class is the decision-making class. The ruling class is the decision-making class; the other class, regardless of its inner differentiations, is at the mercy of these decisions, which determine the general conditions of society, even though they are formed with a view to the special needs of capital. The ruling class cannot act other than it does; that is, stupidly or intelligently, it will do everything to perpetuate itself as a ruling class. Those outside the decision-making process may disagree with the decisions made, as they may not correspond with their own interests, or because of convictions that things should be done differently. But to affect or change these decisions they must have power of their own.” (Pg. 96)
He concludes, “an apathetic working class under certain conditions can become an aroused working class under different conditions… it may in all likelihood be the first to break with the one-dimensional ideology of capitalist rule. But again, there is no certainty. There is only chance---as Marcuse remarks… But it is only a chance … because capital may destroy the world before an opportunity arises to stay its hands. Integration in death is the only integration really given to capitalism.
"Short of this final integration, one-dimensional man will not last for long. He will disappear at the first breakdown of the capitalist economy---in the bloodbaths the capitalist order is now preparing for him. Capitalism, at the height of its powers is also at its most vulnerable; it has nowhere to go but to its death. However small the chances are for revolt, this is not the time to throw in the towel.” (Pg. 106-107)
At least as much about Mattick’s own ideas as it is about Marcuse’s, this book may interest some looking for criticism of Marcuse’s ideas.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews