Herbert Marcuse, liberation, and revolution

[GPDP]

I'm barely getting into studying Marcuse and his ideas, but one thing I've encountered so far, as far as I've come to understand, is his pessimism regarding working class revolution. He sees the working class, at least in the first world, as being completely conformed to the whims of society, and towards maintaining the status quo.

Instead, he seems to be looking at the outsiders and outcasts of the system (the "lumpenproletariat" if you will), women, racial minorities, and the hyper-exploited in the third world as being the modern era's main catalyst for change. In other words, the working class is no longer the main agent of revolution, in his view, because they have become too conservative, and too invested in the system to revolt against it. Other groups, then, must take up the task of liberating humanity.

Now, I am not a Marxist, but I'd like to believe I share the Marxist view that the working class is still the main agent for change. How, then, can Marcuse be thought of as a Marxist? What do more orthodox Marxists say about him? And, more broadly so as to include non-Marxists, is there anything wrong with his pessimistic view of the working class and optimistic view of the lumpens and other socially-repressed groups?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ignore the Chapter on Analytic Philosophy in One Dimensional Man (Chapter Seven). It is based on Gellner, a notorious anti-Socialist liar:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/writings/strange/

[GPDP]

You're going to have to elaborate. I'm not too keen on philosophy at this point. In what way is Marcuse's argument based in Gellner's attack on OLP? Or am I missing the point entirely?

[Annie K.]

Now, I am not a Marxist, but I'd like to believe I share the Marxist view that the working class is still the main agent for change.Can you explain why ?

And did Marcuse claimed to be a marxist ? The links between his works and marx's analysis are quite obvious, but I don't see the point in labelling him in this way.

[GPDP]

...because I'm an anarchist?

[Post-Something]

This thread is relevant to my interests. I ask this question in my head a lot. I would say though, that I think that Marcuse has some element of truth in what he's saying. And I think that because the material conditions are so different from Marx's time, and globalisation is such a big influence, the working class will be much harder to agitate in the first world. Nonetheless, I'm curious to see what the outcome of this thread will be from some of the more orthodox Marxists.

[Annie K.]

I would have thought that your ability to tell what the working class will do, came from your knowledge of what the working class is, rather than of what you are.

[Post-Something]

And did Marcuse claimed to be a marxist ? The links between his works and marx's analysis are quite obvious, but I don't see the point in labelling him in this way.

Yeah, he does, although it would be more accurate to label him a Neo-Marxist I think.

[GPDP]

Oh, I thought you were asking why I wasn't a Marxist.

I know what the working class is, and the dynamics of irreconcilable class antagonisms that can only be brought to an end through an organized revolution of said working class.

What I want to know is what Marxists think of Marcuse's argument that this isn't the case any longer, and further insight into what is wrong with his stance regarding other groups and their revolutionary potential (which he doesn't seem to necessarily equate with the seizing of the means of production).

And yeah, Marcuse is more accurately a neo-Marxist, with ties to Freudian and post-modernist thought.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GPDP:


In what way is Marcuse's argument based in Gellner's attack on OLP? Or am I missing the point entirely?

As he says in Note 2:


2. For similar declarations see Ernest Gellner, Words And Things (Boston. Beacon Press, 1959), p. 100, 256 ff. The proposition that philosophy leaves everything as it is may be true in the context of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach (where it is at the same time denied), or as self-characterization of neo-positivism, but as a general proposition on philosophic thought it is incorrect.

Not only is it clear he has missed Wittgenstein's point, it is also clear that he has largely copied Gellner's arguments in this chapter. For a normally astute theorist (not that I agree with him), this is a rather poor section of Marcuse's work.

It is quite clear from his conversations with Marxist friends that Wittgenstein actually agrees with Marx; philosophy can't change anything, that is the business of politics, activism, science, technology, etc.

[rouchambeau]

I think it is important to remember the context in which Marcuse wrote. One-Dimensional Man came out in 1964 around the end of what we call "The Affluent Society". People were buying lots of things and feeling better about their situations than they had in the past. Marcuse's ideas might be anti-marxist (I don't think they are), but you cannot blame him for being so pessimistic about revolution given what the U.S. was like then.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, he perked up after 1968.

[SEKT]

I'm barely getting into studying Marcuse and his ideas, but one thing I've encountered so far, as far as I've come to understand, is his pessimism regarding working class revolution. He sees the working class, at least in the first world, as being completely conformed to the whims of society, and towards maintaining the status quo.

Instead, he seems to be looking at the outsiders and outcasts of the system (the "lumpenproletariat" if you will), women, racial minorities, and the hyper-exploited in the third world as being the modern era's main catalyst for change. In other words, the working class is no longer the main agent of revolution, in his view, because they have become too conservative, and too invested in the system to revolt against it. Other groups, then, must take up the task of liberating humanity.

Now, I am not a Marxist, but I'd like to believe I share the Marxist view that the working class is still the main agent for change. How, then, can Marcuse be thought of as a Marxist? What do more orthodox Marxists say about him? And, more broadly so as to include non-Marxists, is there anything wrong with his pessimistic view of the working class and optimistic view of the lumpens and other socially-repressed groups?
I entirely disagree on your view about Marcuse claiming that the Lumpemproletariatum was the new revolutionary force or even the students.

What Marcuse (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/one-dimensional-man/index.htm)argued was that the working class (only in the first world because its vision on the third world were completely different) was now integrated to the system but it was not a permanent condition (as a dialectical thinker he never saw things in an unhistorical way) rather Marcuse argued that the lumpemproletaratum and the students were the "catalyst" for the emerging revolutionary movement but they were not the revolutionary group itself.

Paul Mattick wrote a critique on Marcuse's One dimensional man (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1972/marcuse.htm) in which he states that the working class was not a mith as Marcuse argued; presented his arguments basedon the historical materialism. Mattick's critique is acceptable but he also confuses the words of Marcuse.

Marcuse didn't establish that the working class was not revolutionary anymore but that it was tied to the capitalist mode of production so in order to achieve liberation others than the working class also had to struggle but not that the working class was not anymore revolutionary. I think that in order to have a complete notion of Marcuse marxism its necessary to read Mattick's critique.

[GPDP]

I see. Forgive me for my ignorance, then. Like I said, I'm barely getting acquainted with Marcuse, so I hope it's understandable if I misinterpreted what he's saying.

So if I got it right, what Marcuse is saying is that the working class of the advanced capitalist nations are currently bought off, but that a movement consisting of the fringes of first world society and the third world could drive them towards class consciousness and revolution, right?

[SEKT]

I see. Forgive me for my ignorance, then. Like I said, I'm barely getting acquainted with Marcuse, so I hope it's understandable if I misinterpreted what he's saying.

So if I got it right, what Marcuse is saying is that the working class of the advanced capitalist nations are currently bought off, but that a movement consisting of the fringes of first world society and the third world could drive them towards class consciousness and revolution, right?
Not exactly, more than the third world being the revolutionary class what Marcuse saw was that in the third world the complete liberation (and this is against Lenin view) could not be achieved because it would create a polarity like the USSR and the US. In fact he urgued the first world working class to overpass the clasical notion of "
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)", he urgued for a complete rethinking of socialism even with biological roots. I think you should also look for a Marcuse's essay on the biological need for socialism. Only by being more radical the complete liberation could be achieved in both third and first world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have to say that, after re-reading this book for the first time in well over 25 years (in preparation for another of my Essays), One Dimensional Man is a farago of neo-Hegelian nonsense almost from beginning to end.

For example, Marcuse's analysis of the subject-predicate form in Aristotle is a joke (pp.111-13). In this, he follows Hegel, a serious error which I have exposed here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

Moreover, his implicit reliance on Spinoza's crazy claim (that 'every determination is also a negation') is no less unwise -- p.168 -- not least becasue it confuses what we do with language with the mechanisms/devices by means of which we do it.

[Clearly, that is as brainless as confusing a map with a field trip!]