3 ms·

> Wow. So the proletariat aren't revolting, because the society has met their needs? And that's a problem? Only if you're more concerned about having a revoluti

> Wow. So the proletariat aren't revolting, because the society has met their needs? And that's a problem? Only if you're more concerned about having a revolution than about the point of the revolution - to make peoples' lives better. Marcuse's point was that material goods, and the system that optimizes that freedom, comes at the cost of other freedoms, in particular of political dissent, autonomy, and freedom from total administration of the state. It would be better to consider the point Huxley was making as closer to what he was getting at. Marcuse tried to synthesize Marx's sociology (while maintaining that Marx's classical economic analysis has been superceded in modern capitalism) with Freudian social psychology. >And, the rights and freedoms that let the proletariat have a non-horrible life is therefore something to destroy, so that the proletariat will then have a reason to revolt? No, this was never Marcuse's argument. Instead he argued that not only are the majority of workers better off materially, within capitalism this comes at the cost of the loss of revolutionary potential. For Marcuse, the availability of goods in capitalism was one of its strong points, but the alienation and libidinal repression of workers was not. Marcuse did not argue for destruction, but rather for individuals to consider for themselves what are 'true' and 'false' needs. In other words, Marcuse thought there were problems with capitalism which are not captured purely in terms of the material wealth in Western countries. Marcuse was not very quotable, but this quote of his points to his rhetorical style: > “If the worker and his boss enjoy the same television program and visit the same resort places, if the typist is as attractively made up as the daughter of her employer, if the Negro owns a Cadillac, if they all read the same newspaper, then this assimilation indicates not the disappearance of classes, but the extent to which the needs and satisfactions that serve the preservation of the Establishment are shared by the underlying population.”

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> > And, the rights and freedoms that let the proletariat have a non-horrible life is therefore something to destroy, so that the proletariat will then have a reason to revolt? > No, this was never Marcuse's argument. Instead he argued that not only are the majority of workers better off materially, within capitalism this comes at the cost of the loss of revolutionary potential. I fail to see the difference between "they don't have a reason to revolt" and "loss of revolutionary potential". Given who you are, I suspect that you're using the second term in a technical way. Could you define it, or expand a bit on what you mean here? > In other words, Marcuse thought there were problems with capitalism which are not captured purely in terms of the material wealth in Western countries. I agree, actually. We have fed the body, and left the soul starving. (Is this what Marx meant by alienation?) It's better than people physically starving, but it's still not good enough. I doubt that revolution is the answer, though, nor changing the means of production. It seems to me that the problem is that people are expecting material prosperity to satisfy them, and it doesn't. Merely changing the means of production isn't going to fix that.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >I fail to see the difference between "they don't have a reason to revolt" and "loss of revolutionary potential". People, according to Marcuse, are more readily able to see the problems of the system when they are on the outside and the margins, and being on the outside usually entailed a lower standard of living, low wages, and soul-crushing work. Marcuse thought that there are serious problems with capitalism, ones which may be reason for revolt, but increasing material security and integration into the system in which the worker becomes part of the machinery of the establishment (sometimes quite literally in lock-step with the machines or even a particular brand of machine) leads to this conversation not arising. He argued that contra Orwell in which "war is peace, peace is war", the contradiction is hidden in the noun itself by unintentional ideological forces. This precludes even most conversations about freedom, never mind critique. The point is that people should have revolutinary potential even if they deliberate and decide not to revolt. I should have the potential to read a book, even if upon reflection and consideration using that potential I decide to watch a movie instead. He argued that the modern system and the state, with its educational system, dull critical thinking or fail to nurture it in the first place. People have fewer options, including the option to revolt. In Repressive Tolerance he argued that because these potentials and critical abilities have been dulled, core democratic functions of deliberation cannot meaningfully be carried out any more. The point probably also applies to, say, the Soviet system, its integration of the people into its state machinery, its totalizing ideology, and its propaganda which precludes informed deliberation among the majority of people.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for your reply. One thing, though: > He argued that the modern system and the state, with its educational system, dull critical thinking or fail to nurture it in the first place. I don't disagree. But before the modern educational system, did something do better at nurturing critical thinking? I could see saying that, for example, the New England 1700s education produced critical thinkers, but that's a very small region. Did, say, the education system in 1890-1915 Russia produce better critical thinkers? Or pre-1848 Europe? Somehow I doubt it. Or is the idea that, say, from 1900 to 1950 the education system produced critical thinkers, but the "modern" (post 1950) system does not? When was it better than this? It's not good, sure, but when was it better?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

> > And, the rights and freedoms that let the proletariat have a non-horrible life is therefore something to destroy, so that the proletariat will then have a reason to revolt? > No, this was never Marcuse's argument. Instead he argued that not only are the majority of workers better off materially, within capitalism this comes at the cost of the loss of revolutionary potential. I fail to see the difference between "they don't have a reason to revolt" and "loss of revolutionary potential". Given who you are, I suspect that you're using the second term in a technical way. Could you define it, or expand a bit on what you mean here? > In other words, Marcuse thought there were problems with capitalism which are not captured purely in terms of the material wealth in Western countries. I agree, actually. We have fed the body, and left the soul starving. (Is this what Marx meant by alienation?) It's better than people physically starving, but it's still not good enough. I doubt that revolution is the answer, though, nor changing the means of production. It seems to me that the problem is that people are expecting material prosperity to satisfy them, and it doesn't. Merely changing the means of production isn't going to fix that.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>I fail to see the difference between "they don't have a reason to revolt" and "loss of revolutionary potential". People, according to Marcuse, are more readily able to see the problems of the system when they are on the outside and the margins, and being on the outside usually entailed a lower standard of living, low wages, and soul-crushing work. Marcuse thought that there are serious problems with capitalism, ones which may be reason for revolt, but increasing material security and integration into the system in which the worker becomes part of the machinery of the establishment (sometimes quite literally in lock-step with the machines or even a particular brand of machine) leads to this conversation not arising. He argued that contra Orwell in which "war is peace, peace is war", the contradiction is hidden in the noun itself by unintentional ideological forces. This precludes even most conversations about freedom, never mind critique. The point is that people should have revolutinary potential even if they deliberate and decide not to revolt. I should have the potential to read a book, even if upon reflection and consideration using that potential I decide to watch a movie instead. He argued that the modern system and the state, with its educational system, dull critical thinking or fail to nurture it in the first place. People have fewer options, including the option to revolt. In Repressive Tolerance he argued that because these potentials and critical abilities have been dulled, core democratic functions of deliberation cannot meaningfully be carried out any more. The point probably also applies to, say, the Soviet system, its integration of the people into its state machinery, its totalizing ideology, and its propaganda which precludes informed deliberation among the majority of people.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for your reply. One thing, though: > He argued that the modern system and the state, with its educational system, dull critical thinking or fail to nurture it in the first place. I don't disagree. But before the modern educational system, did something do better at nurturing critical thinking? I could see saying that, for example, the New England 1700s education produced critical thinkers, but that's a very small region. Did, say, the education system in 1890-1915 Russia produce better critical thinkers? Or pre-1848 Europe? Somehow I doubt it. Or is the idea that, say, from 1900 to 1950 the education system produced critical thinkers, but the "modern" (post 1950) system does not? When was it better than this? It's not good, sure, but when was it better?