What a wonderful interview between two very different intellectuals, who fully respect each other. Also great to see that Professor Marcuse has a nice dose of humor.
He was also a Labour MP for years under the disastrous left wing Michael Foot. Defected to David Owen’s Gang of Four. Died sadly in 2019, but in a way fortunately for him, because he missed this CCP virus and SAGE inspired lockdown. Well done, Susan Michie, quite possibly brought western civilisation down.
42:21 "Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties." -Dwight Eisenhower
What an empty comment. Are you implying that without Marx, we would have social greater unity? What kind of dystopia would that be? I'm glad there is a wide range of political stances and thoughts. It's humbling, because the more I see, the more I feel like none are truly "right" epistemologically. The discourse would be too narrow in that world.
@@post-structuralist What an empty comment. Are you you using name calling to hide your justification for destroying social greater unity? The kind of dystopia you seek? You're glad there is an entire selection of death cults. It's narcissistic, because you pretend to be broad minded, yet ignore the tens of millions killed by your ideas. You are likely too insane to be running around at liberty.
Probably Disagree with the guy on some important points (also probably agree on some others) but Herbert Marcuse genuinely seems like a nice, intelligent and interesting person that I could imagine having a good insightful conversation with
They’re not bankrupt. The ‘capitalist’ system imposed by reaganism is nothing more than a last gasp of imperial hubris. It destroyed the wealth of the working class and imposed onerous demands on developing countries with a gun pointed to their head. The only outlier in all this was China. It imposed a state-led economic development that was insulated from predatory international capital. Thus breaking the development curse of middle-income economies.
What does the new left say today? Give me sexual liberation and I won't criticize your economic policies! The left use to represent the working class, not no more tho.
@@guilherme2322 He helped create it. Remember Marcuse was used by the American brass to draw divisions between the more class focused left at the time.
They had the same vision and same means but wrong moral basis It seems like any system is restricted by innate human frailties: envy and jealousy and violence Never one mention about how to deal with those issues. It's always the failure point.
Hegel foresaw all of this with his Master and Slave Dialectic idea. A Master class can choose to give up some of it's privileges and advantages either to truly bring about an equality of rights or as a method to stave off a violent revolution from the Slave class.
This isn't what Hegel means by Herrschaft and Knechtschaft. Without getting into the historical philosophical development reflected in its time, what is meant is that the two forms of self cosnciousness refer to each other and thus depend on one another's recognition. The forms which this division takes, however, appear at first to be the inverse of what they essentially are: The master at first appears to be the essence of the slave, as the slave is beholden to the master by way of labouring for them whereas the master is a being unto themselves which is independent and thus free of the slave. Yet, through the process of labouring, the slave comes to realize the necessity of their own freedom from the master by way of recognizing themselves in the products of their labour and not merely as an appendage of the master. Conversely, because the essence of self consciousness is the externalization of ones internal content, the master stagnates precisely because they are not self actualizing but are in fact beholden to the labour of the slave for their own 'self actualization'. The Master nor the slave chooses this back and forth, but rather sets this necessary upheaval into motion by way of their activities.
@@henryberrylowry9512 What you have described is the background to what I stated. Neither the Master nor the Slave is completely unconscious of the process that is taking place. There can be and is conscious maneuvering.
@@thenowchurch6419 However, the slave or labourer has considerably less bargaining power or manouvrebility & it will take considerable self-sacrifice to get into the arena of middle or upper class, hence the propensity of crime / corruption as a shortcut to climbing the ladder...especially in Africa (where I reside & grew up)
@@gysgijsbers4202 No doubt. There must be a moral re-armament among a critical mass of the laborer class before society can be transformed and that is a drawn out process.
Some of his words are quite insightful especially when you think about the huge gap between the current workers’ movements in China and the complete indifference of the public towards them. Now most of the people don’t only lose chains, they lose more. I’ve heard many comments on them like “ridiculous “ “must be taken advantage by someone” and “stupid “ none of which I agree obviously. Many US politicians dreamed of the liberation of China after the increase of middle class while they know nothing about what Marcuse and other Frankfurt school scholars have said before that in an advanced industrialized society, the control and suppression are comprehensive. Today in China some students from universities have come to show their support to workers, they still use a relatively old strategy and couldn’t get more social attention. ( Though this also resulted from the powerful control on the internet by the government)
Why is it that it seems the majority of comments on video lectures about the Frankfurt school philosophers are written by proto-fascists that never seem to have bothered to read even the most basic of Greek philosophical texts?
Because the Neo-Con, Proto-fascist, Conservative Right Wing Nuts are not bright and educated people. They are Anti-Intellectuals who cling desperately to a clearly failed world view and the problem is that no matter how much educated people try to convince them they will never admit they are wrong and will never change their world view, even in the face of evidence. They are poorly educated and books are foreign to them.
It's not the intellectualism that these "proto-fascists" are opposed to. In fact, there are quite a few intellectuals on the right: Thomas Sowell, Paul Johnson, and Charles Krauthammer immediately come to my mind as examples. Instead, it the elitism, the snark that drips from your comment that mocks the common sense of the ordinary man and demands the subjugation of the individual conscience to the sensibilities of the intellectual inbred elites. That is what the typical "conservative right wing nuts" disdain.
Indeed. I know many people who like his ideas and deplore his life. I, personally, have not use for his philosophy and I doubt you would find many conservatives (especially where I live, America) who would find his philosophy pivotal or even helpful to the conservative movement. He is nowhere near as popular or seminal as Russel Kirk or Edmund Burke.
Zachary Holler Oh you don't think so? He was an actual scholar and his post-structural thought is still taught in schools, whereas the names you listed above are anti-intellectual talking heads who make their living creating spin for news media and corporate PR think tanks.
Excellent. The policy makers do NOT make policy based on the will of the people, but the will of the dollar. This has been proved by the Investment Theory. Magee is a generalist. As fond of him and his programs as I am, he falls into certain traps as a result. His counterarguments are based on a rather shallow interpretation of Marx, politics, so-called "capitalist" economy, etc., and he exhibits the characteristics of the "One Dimensional Society." Marcuse is as relevant today as ever.
Thank you for posting that. That was the first time I've ever heard a member of the Frankfurt school speak for himself. Marcuse seems "elite" to me. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) I believe he would be appalled by the vulgarity, banality, and intolerance of modern progressive America.
It was part of Engels plan for what we're seeing today, using grievance studies with holistic statistics holistic auto ethnography form disparagement and a nihilistic covert narcissist no longer teaching subject and content replacing it with activism identity politics which is Marxism relabeled/repackaged... Their outline was introduced comparing it to a "boiling frog" systemic institutional betrayal. I'm starting to understand why Europe burned the books related to training Marxism in education.
Well, the main thing that’s wrong with it is that he is a member of “the elite” claiming to represent what’s best for the proletariat, and essentially claiming to speak for them.
For me, the Best enterview. Both show your vision of left and why no of the right too? I liked as Marcuse understands elite, a question deep. Thank you so much!
I confess that the interlocutor Bryan Magee was unknown to me. His discomfort (masking outright hostility, I think) regarding Marxism is given some expression in this talk with Herbert Marcuse. The interview format is a convenient one for a presiding opponent. When his challenges to the subject are met with unwelcome arguments, he is able to subside into the protective undergrowth of the prescriptive norm- "I'd like to go further in refuting you but I'm only here to ascertain your views." He says as much when Marcuse invites him to respond. A much richer and riskier dialogue is thus avoided. I've just google his name and learned that Professor Magee was a Labour Party MP as well as a distinguished scholar. He stood on the right wing of the party, in opposition to the leadership of Michael Foot, and joined the short-lived SDP in the split of 1982. His political career came to an end in the subsequent general election. It may seem odd to express curiosity towards the interviewer in this instance. Marcuse was, after all, a major figure in western philosophy, and he's the focus of this presentation. But I've always found the cultural role of the interviewer to be both important and intriguing, in contrast to its accompanying pose of disinterested elicitation. And I don't mean this of Professor Magee specifically. The interviewer sits in a sniper's nest. He may never fire a round, but if he does he will do so with the knowledge that he is already in that place of retreat which guarantees his safety. His target remains exposed, and he has only to rustle the leaves in order to restore tranquility and order.
I know im 2 years late to the party, but since the whole movement against racism, sexism and so forth came from them, you could say that the primordial form of it did originate from them. Even then however they never really had good intent.
Absolutely, that's crystal clear. And most of those brainwashed zombies don't have an idea about that, even though it's al written, planned and well documented. But before him you can also thank Antonio Gramsci for that.
A great TV program about influental philosophers. A big thank to the person that uploaded this. I am especially grateful to have the oportunity to see this program about Herbert Marcuse, a true gem, very difficult to find. Very important document for all the successive generations too.
marcuse was a communist academic who swayed huge cultural influence...and still does today. feminism and all the branches of neo marxist thought rely heavily on his and other frankfurt academics.
At the beginning Marcuse mentioned the general destructiveness and brutal "male" character of the society the students "saw before their eyes" yet it culminated in contradictory behaviour much like that of the October Revolution. The degradation of the environment,education is currently happening in capitalist/socialist country(Canada,occupied by the Trudeau). Just because fascism was military defeated does not mean it ceases to exist internally. They than spoke of how Marxism precipitated fascism but they did not speak of how it precipitated anti nationalism and one worldism(in a Canadian context,idea latched onto by Trudeau sr.) Marcuse also speaks in very broad terms when he mentions the "alienating" labour people may have had to perform in all their lives leaving out the faculty of choice as if we are all automata.Marxian theory has not been corroborated in the development of Wilsonian concepts(well received by Vladimir Lenin) rather than capitalist ones which is about high government interventionalism unlike other forms of capitalism. At 24:00 notice magee comments "Like the medieval churchman predicting the end of the world" note surprising given the value theory nonsense of Marxian economics. The Marxian concept of alienation is also awfully trivial before according to Marcuse it had been trivialized. A concept which generalizes circumstances as if everyone were a manual labourer. More psychologizing than substance. Marcuse also blames the mass pollution on capitalism,but is deeply socalist(Very near to the original Marxism,but still relevant) is the most materialistic,scammer ridden,polluted country in the world. Why this partiality?He also says all domination until today was patriarchal? Does he not know of the royal families infront of his eyes and their influence in building a national culture to which all adhere? The specific "feminine" qualities he speaks of are actually being shunned by seemingly the same "womens liberation" movement he speaks of. He than condemns male character as "violent and brutal" with more general psychologizing,I could the same thing in general terms about women being materialistic,envious and grossly competitive.I do agree with Marcuse on aesthetics and language(near towards the end of the program) it is just that there is more to critique than to admire.
As a woman I cringe with him discussing sexism. The women’s movement in many ways ‘efeminized’ women. Instead of elevating us for powerful contributions to civilization and evolution, anything deemed uniquely female is devalued. Isn’t that the definition of misogyny?
Hate words used to stifle opposition while they destroy western civilization. It is psychological warfare. Political correctness is a deadly form of thought control.
That’s part of the plan. The aim is the collapse of everything, and of society. Then violent revolution and the rise of socialism. You could even say, build back better.
Interesting that the interviewer's critiques of Marcuse (which M defends very well) are much weaker since 2008. We can see how Ms theories are actually much more relevant now than there were in 1977 when this video was recorded. The theory has not aged and it fits the present even more than the 60s/70s.
"In a genuine socialist society labor, full time alienated labor, would no longer be the measure of wealth and value...In a authentic socialist society, men and women could live their life without fear, without being compared to spend their entirely adult existence, in alienated performances?" At around 10:28 he is saying Marx, envisioned a society that did not place value on labor, productivity etc. Isn't that to be expected from an intellectual? Sounds like Marx and his followers want to reorganize society to put themselves, intellectuals, at the top of the hierarchy.
No. That's a very shallow interpretation. In a socialist society, the need and status of an intellectual per se would be diminished. With a qualitatively different kind of life, with people not having to engage in alienated labour, they would be perfectly efficiency in analysing their material conditions, and ths pervading reality around them. They wouldn't need a Marcusse to formulate it for them.
@@abhishekparija400 so you dream it will be the other proclamation of “end of history” where “perfect society” will emerge and everyone will be happy. I am sorry to disappoint you but it will never end. critical theorists will find something else to critic unless “big brother” in this “ brave new world” will not shot them down. By the way, socialism will disintegrate itself as people will lose motivation to perform (work hard and challenge themselves as it happened in USSR; popular question with suspicion back then was “ do you need more than others?”) and gradually degraded.
@@abhishekparija400 even socialists knew that socialism will never work,that is why they invented this idea of new socialist man.socialism is just one other religion and ideology not economic theory based on scientific reason and data
Freire echoed the concern that liberation is in the hands of the oppressed, while his disciples (i.e. Giroux and McClaren) started building the same sort of insuperable rhetoric that was unavailable to the masses. I enjoyed the defense of the "turgid" language though, particularly in terms of "a rupture with conformity" and necessarily reflecting the complexity of the issues. More to think about :)
4:45 "was a blatant contrast between the tremendous available social *wells* and its miserable, destructive and wasteful use". Zen Doctor Marcuse and ze use _(his young followers)_ started poisoning zose wells.
I found Fromms work surrounding alienation made a lot of sense in that he framed it in terms of how we identify with things within consumer society and in turn we tend to identify within our relationships with the same mode of objectification as we would with products we buy. It's not hard to see how many men today view women as some sort of possession they own and little more. Talk of feelings and emotions are often met with annoyance.
Marcuse and Fromme are just code for replace all whites, replace Christianity, disempower males and remove biological truths such as gender, race, and sexuality only for whites, males, Christians and heterosexuals. I know, how about you people leave us alone and stop flooding our continents with fake refugees and calling us racists with some pseudo intellectual babble, should we disagree.
lol okay then. Read The Sane Society or anything by Fromm and you'll see how stupid you sound right now. You're over generalizing in a big way if you think some questionable ideas that may have came from the Frankfurt School reflect any kind of fundamental ideology. Aside from that, who the fuck is this 'us' you speak of? Are you actually identifying with skin color? I presume you don't know that it's a mistake to identity in ways in which you see yourself as a victim, especially as a collective. Such attitudes will ensure you'll be the SJWs of the near future.
I don't care about what people identify as. I am a white, male, Christian, heterosexual, that is biological reality not what I identify as lmao. The exact thinking from the Frankfurt school leads people to generalise about terrible white, male, Christians and brilliant "other" people that need to flood our countries to replace us. How can you say that there is no fundamental ideology. Adorno in the Authoritarian personality did his studies on white Americans and found them to be high authoritarians with his "f scale" - f for fascist. They only did the studies on white Americans. Hence the popular thinking, terrible whites and their slave history when everyone had slaves, terrible west where nationalism can brew Naziism but Tibettan, Palestinian, African, South American nationalism is brilliant. Yes we all know what the Frankfurt School is code for.
That's your choice, but if you don't pay attention to how to identify then you don't actually think for yourself. Instead you'll likely over identify with groups which of course makes you a collectivist. Identity is subjective, not biologically based. Think of culture for example.
No my white, male, heterosexual basis is not just an identity, not a choice, its simply biology. I might want to identify as a giraffe but that doesn't make me a giraffe. I must have lots of terrible cultural hegemony from identifying with these repressive authoritarian native European white groups you see. Of course people within the Frankfurt School social sciences don't have any cultural hegemony at all, its not like they aren't all parroting the same thing at the end of the day... free people from white male Christian western imperialism oppression and authoritarianism and remove these structures, celebrate the other who is much better yawn yawn.........
I would also like to point out a few things I have seen in these comments I am seeing. Marcuse actually criticisms both Marx AND the left. Though not all sociologists delve into these things, it really should not be surprising that he, a sociologist, touches on sexism, racism, poor education systems, and other such things. Also interesting is what seems to be hatred merely because he is Jewish.
It's pointless to discuss about socialism or comunism as an alternative to capitalism. We just have to compare the US with Cuba, Venezuela for instance. The US has always been the country that millions of people all over the world want to come to and the socialist countries people want to flee from. There's no guessing why. There's no need to test this absurdity any longer, it's not only evil, it's insane. For all the socialists out there, unite yourselves and go to Cuba and make it a great nation on your own, without the need of anything from a capitalist nation. *Spoil alert!*: You're going to be doomed.
Of course you say this as if the United States doesn't send the CIA to coup a country that tries anything even remotely left. How about when the United Fruit company in Guatemala told the U.S government that the Guatemalan government wanted to nationalize the farming, so they would lose major profit. Can you guess what happened? CIA started a coup. Same thing can be said of Venezuela, and even Brazil right now with operation car wash.
I am watching this for on of my sociology classes and I must agree with my teacher, Marcuse is quite the brilliant man. I find his theories such as the One-Dimensional Man very interesting to say the least. To repeat what my teacher taught us: The Frankfurt school was one made up of bright Jewish individuals both male and female but they did not stay in Germany long because of the rise of Nazism and thus dispersed with many ending up in the US. Whats interesting is instrumental rational versus value rational. Instrumental being what is efficient while value is more about emotions. Our teacher gave a good example: If a student goes through a heavy breakup but still comes to class that is instrumental rational. If the student calls in and says they cannot come in because of the breakup than it is value rational. Coming to class is the efficient action while not going is based on emotions and feeling. This is not to say one is good or bad. Marcuse, and others, said that instrumental is not wholly evil but just very dominant to the point there is no hope and value rational will all but disappear. Bureaucracy is a good example of trying to make a society as efficient as possible but many who have done their taxes know that this is not so. Habermas, another student at the Frankfurt school, however, said there is hope. We just take the system that promotes instrumental rational and put value rational in its place. A society where everyone contributes, one with no bias media but just knowledge, one that gives children a good honest education. Obviously rules and laws are important but so is caring for one another and treating each other like humans with basic human respect.
I kinda have the feeling philosophers such as Marx and Marcuse are secretly romanticists, seeing modern capitalism as destructing man's intrinsic needs, resulting in alienation. However, where I disagree with Marx and Marcuse is that they assumed egalitarianism. They do not see, in my opinion, that hierarchy and hierarchical status rises from nature. A truly Marxist society is not possible for the fact that human beings are not born with the same capabilities and the same potente. It therefore probably is a dysgenic ideology, trying to vanish the distinction between the stronger and the weaker. Fascism, in turn, appeared as a reaction of the eugenic side of society, wanting to protect societal structure from falling into a regression to the mean. Nevertheless, I share their critique on alienation and therefore, in my opinion, a society as close to natural law should rise up. Key is the re-establishment of some kind of Zeitgeist which values striving for improvement, traditional values etc.
@@alfredsigurdsson9196 Marx did not believe in egalitarianism. Quoting from an essay arguing this point; Marx and Engels are often depicted as egalitarians by people on the right. In reality Marx and Engels rejected equality as a social ideal and as a permanent yardstick against which social arrangements should be judged. This can be seen in Marx and Engel’s reaction to the programme of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany. In March 1875 Engels complained in a letter that the programme mistakenly advocated “[t]he elimination of all social and political inequality”, rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions”. For Engels, the goal of total social equality was impossible and represented the ambitions of an under-developed form of socialism. He wrote, “As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.” Link: anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-were-not-egalitarians/
@@calc2323 thanks for the response. Marx argues one can only be in favour of equality along specific dimensions, such as equality of cake consumption, and never equality as an abstract ideal. What I meant to say, and I see the wrong choice of words in my first comment, is that they believe in equal distribution of wealth. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs This famous quote of Marx, from the same work as your quotes, already shows Marx' conviction of human inequality.
Rationality is not emotional. "Value rational" is a nonsense term being used to induce cognitive dissonance. "I must agree with my teacher, Marcuse is quite brilliant." Are you quite brilliant? If not, how would you know how brilliant Marcuse was?
The New Left basically did nothing but constantly reexamine, it's absurd to assert otherwise when you take the large picture into account. His essential argument is it wasn't reexamined in the right way according to his view of stages of development according to Marx, but even Marx said stages of development did not always develop in the same order, for example in letters to Vasulich about the potential of the Mirs in Russia.
Of all the interviews McGee has done, he's never attempted to argue against what his interviewee was saying. What is it about challenging the foundations of his own comforts and privileges that caused him to do this?
I listen to the first 2 minutes and it made me realize we as a species are still completely ignorant and have a lot of growing up to do. Neither side is right or wrong. They are simply confused. And I believe our short life spans are a key factor to why we rinse and repeat this bullshit
I would take what he says with a smidgeon of salt, but I believe he says more truth than lies and I believe that anyone who would dismiss him may apply more folly than wisdom.
You don't have to agree with Marcuse but why assume any lies at all? Marcuse is perfectly open about his beliefs - you can read his books, his lectures, his interviews. Why assume any dishonesty here?
Magee, on form as ever, hits home with his final point regarding the pomposity of Critical Theory, and Marcuse isn't convincing in his reply. If a radical approach to language is truly needed, why stop with writing? Why doesn't he adopt its opaque, mannered style in speech, if indicating the 'rupture with conformity' is paramount? If he truly believes normal speech is corrupted by capitalist power structures, surely by playing the game at all he's lost already.
Not only is ‘cultural Marxism’ an anti-communist fiction, but the ‘Frankfurt school’ ceased to be a coherent system of thought the more time passed after it left Frankfurt. A common interest in combining the insights of psychoanalysis with Marxist theory, and a wish to understand the reasons why the German working class turned towards fascism, is what drew them together. After their exile they began to go their different ways. Erich Fromm had some sharp debates with Marcuse on both Marxism and psychoanalysis, both of which he argued Marcuse had misrepresented in Eros and Civilisation. In the sixties Fromm was probably more influential than Marcuse and yet neither of these men even mention him! He was a socialist humanist of course which is why the American conservatives all ignore him now, I guess, since his compassionate attitude to human suffering doesn’t suit their narrative. Pluckrose is probably the best exponent of a liberal critique of post-modernism and she at least makes clear that social justice postmodernism is not derived from Marxism.
God I love Marcuse. Also, I feel it’s important to note that rightists act like postmodernism is a new thing that the left is utilizing. Not at all, in fact it’s been around for quite a long time and is falling out of academic favor, along with theories like poststructualism. In addition to this postmodernism, while usually socialistic, is not inherent to the left. It can be utilized by the right as well.
"[I]nferiority complex, some kind of a self-inflicted masochism, which found expression, among other things, in this contempt for intellectuals because they are only intellectuals...". Sounds pretty relevant to what we see today with the yeeting of experts in almost all subject matters. Not just criticizing the reliance of experts, but ignoring them in all cases where it conflicts with either emotions or financial matters. Where we see scientists and historians as the ones that produce "fake news" rather than politicians and billionaires that do.
So many "holes" in their ideologies, many of them intentionally made to misdirect ... This movement caused huge problems in Germany and it's continued movement using psyops instead of foundational equal and fair structure is destructive to anyone that isn't a hedonistic. So disappointed that our society is less than because of this movement.
The reasons the Marxists failed is their ideologies should have helped to "fix" societies through criticism not meant to cause more problems through intentional sabotage. The systemic dumbing down of students through Frankfurt school aka the school of critical theory's using outlined tactics such as holistic statistics holistic auto ethnography and irrational obedience indoctrination. In 1950's the introduction of dialectical behavior techniques to cause further discourse, this person seems very intelligent but highly doubt he's had enough world experience. The subconscious he speaks of is the "computer brain" and the impressions such as through Prussian obedience. The marriage he speaks of is I guess cognitive dissonance? This man explains the destructive impressions expressed in the future, was this social experiment planned? The politicians are definitely controlled economically through lobbying!
@@JBroughton2 Maybe people are in these comments wistfully regretting that Marcuse wasn't murdered in the Holocaust and promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Maybe anti-marxism is a core tenet of fascist ideology and as such, comments sections like these give fascists a place to wave their hate boners. Maybe an inability to reckon with difficult ideas results in calls for arbitrary murder. :^)
People, if you're just here to go "oh, I know what this guy is talking about, because communism is bad", you are talking out of your ass. Marcuse, though I personally agree very little with him, is still a great intellectual whose work needs to be studied and respected before you can go around taking shits on it. Learn to study nuance, even if it's nuance that you disagree with, FFS.
Have you ever lived in communist country? I did, and believe me, communism is really enslaving political system. Nice words, manifests, lies, propaganda.. and terror.. I choose freedom.
He is talking entirely out of his arse. He made the perfect the enemy of the good and laid the goundwork for the morally absolutist imbeciles that infest our culture at the moment. They are the anti intellectualists that this person speaks of. His juvenile, anti human ideas have set in train a process that can only lead to utter ruin, and we are well on the way
We are still looking to get a better society: inequality is sky rocketing, many people left behind...Trump is just a sympthom of a much larger social phenomon at large.
Some of the criticisms of Marxism, although they back away from Marxist solutions to the theoretical problems raised in the direction of liberal Anti-Communism and equation of Monopoly Capitalism or even Fascism with Actually-Existing Socialism, do highlight real issues that Marxism-Leninist does actually itself address, but that have at various points been weak spots in ideological confrontation of the Worker's Movement with its opponents such as the Theory of Alienation, or the application of new forms of psychological and social Manipulation under both Monopoly Captialism and Actualy-Existing Socialism and their differences. But we are not supplied with either Marxist-Leninist or other viable solutions to these problems (which Marcuse claims are outside the scope of the interview) in his written works! Other often controversial aspects of Marxism with Ruling Intellectual Circles such as Theory of the Rate of Profit to Fall are endorsed. Many of the problems that are not dealt with ARE addressed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bukharin, Lukacs, Lukacs's student Istvan Meszaros, the Marxist Philosopher Collectives of the German Democratic Republic (including Alfred Kosing, Erich Hahn, Wolfgang Eichhorn I et al), and their Soviet Contemporaries. That is where to look for ACTUAL explanations to problems like alienation. Not in ahistorical applications of categories from Freud or One-Dimensional theoretical vulgarizations of and "improvements" on Marxist Theories like one find in Marcuse's work. By the by, what was Marcuse's personal situation during the 1950's. Many Communists were suffering HORRIBLY during that period. Was he rising from his sick bed like William Z Foster to continue the fight? Or did he take up residence at "Hotel Abyss" as Lukacs accused others of his Critical Theory group as having done? Given the levels of corruption in the 1950's Psychoanalytic Community that he was rubbing elbows with as an ex Office of Strategic Services Employee, did he stay clean? It would take excellent anchoring and a huge amount of personal discipline to do it and continue ACTUALLY functioning for the Workers Movement. Did he have such discipline and if so who anchored his conduct or are we to believe he was just that excellent at being adrift? It could have come from Germany. Did it? I think he may well have become Unmoored! Why was he suddenly promoted as the Patron Saint of the New Left rising to the status of instant celebrity? Did it come from the KGB or the CIA and which networks within either agency? One should ask these and similar questions about any instant celebrity including his world famous student who was quickly catapulted into the leadership of CPUSA! His comments on aesthetics could point in the direction of the balance between Socialist Realism and Heroic Socialist Realism as it was advocated in the USSR and other Warsaw Pact Countries, but does it? From what I remember from his Reason and Revolt, although it engages with the New Left Art Scene it does not seem particularly theoretically enlightening. Was there helpful intelligence coding or coordination for the Left in it as he seems to indicate was present in Adorno's work in this interview? If so what networks of that period were they coding for and what were they coding? All of those questions need Reason-Based, Evidence-Based answers. It would be far easier to obtain them if so many of the people involved in Critical Theory AND the Right of the CPUSA hadn't proved themselves to be horribly corrupt and useless, or of those who weren't, hand't already passed. Would be an interesting project for a historical reconstruction and useful for getting a better idea of what at least a portion of the US and German Left actually looked like in the 1960's and 1970's. As for those "socially-conditioned qualities of femininity" he recommends, at least from what I've seen of the behavior of many of the "rising stars" of Intelligent female leaders (both those with corruption issues and those without) we have passed the Rubicon in the direction of a pandora-like feminine aggression that makes Marcuse's comments a bit outdated. We should focus on appropriate network standards with oversight of both genders to prevent either misandry or misogyny in our frequently highly alienated work. ;)
32:12 I'd disagree with this statement, life typically imitates art in many regards especially in television (they call it programming for a reason) ....
Of course Marcuse was not a philosopher of any distinction. He was a picture language smith. Simply putting words together to sound grammatically conventional, does not ensure any kind of conscious relevance or clear meaning and he is hiding under the “gift wrapping” of the German accent, which imparts a sense of authority, however tenuous. Herbert Marcuse was the architect of the student protests and anti-Vietnam riots, across the entire Western world, in the age of Aquarius, the late 1960s. In this time Marcuse was in his sixties, which is ironic considering the fact that Marcuse was the person who coined the phrase: ”Don't trust anyone over thirty”. Marcuse is also the original architect of what we call “woke”, in 2023. It used to be called “political correctness”, during the 1990s. Marcuse also advocated for the total proliferation of pornography and every kind of sexual perversion, throughout society, including adults having sex with children. Herbert Marcuse makes Hitler look like a girl guide. Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer decided to turn Marxism into a cultural warfare, instead of Karl Marx's original class warfare. So, the new surrogates of Marxism are 1) Multi-culturalism, 2) Civil Rights, 3) Feminism, 4) Environmentalism and 5) Sexual Liberation (equal rights for homosexuals).
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I like those old type of interviews, taking their times, contemplating ideas.
Yea, you would never see something like this on TV nowadays
What a wonderful interview between two very different intellectuals, who fully respect each other. Also great to see that Professor Marcuse has a nice dose of humor.
wow, incredible. the reporter actually knows what he is talking about unlike most reporters nowadays
He is a trained philosopher and academic ( still around but not active anymore)
He was also a Labour MP for years under the disastrous left wing Michael Foot. Defected to David Owen’s Gang of Four. Died sadly in 2019, but in a way fortunately for him, because he missed this CCP virus and SAGE inspired lockdown. Well done, Susan Michie, quite possibly brought western civilisation down.
42:21 "Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."
-Dwight Eisenhower
How can I use my only friend, Marx, to come into a country and constantly divide it amongst itself in perpetuity? This is how.
No one can deny my intelligence because my accent.
What?
Listen to the opening statement.
ruclips.net/video/kKnqDljpp_o/видео.html
What an empty comment. Are you implying that without Marx, we would have social greater unity? What kind of dystopia would that be? I'm glad there is a wide range of political stances and thoughts. It's humbling, because the more I see, the more I feel like none are truly "right" epistemologically.
The discourse would be too narrow in that world.
@@post-structuralist What an empty comment. Are you you using name calling to hide your justification for destroying social greater unity? The kind of dystopia you seek? You're glad there is an entire selection of death cults. It's narcissistic, because you pretend to be broad minded, yet ignore the tens of millions killed by your ideas.
You are likely too insane to be running around at liberty.
Probably Disagree with the guy on some important points (also probably agree on some others) but Herbert Marcuse genuinely seems like a nice, intelligent and interesting person that I could imagine having a good insightful conversation with
Whilst Marcuse’s ideas seemed bankrupt and cumbersome, the interviewer did an excellent job in allowing him to explain them.
They’re not bankrupt. The ‘capitalist’ system imposed by reaganism is nothing more than a last gasp of imperial hubris. It destroyed the wealth of the working class and imposed onerous demands on developing countries with a gun pointed to their head. The only outlier in all this was China. It imposed a state-led economic development that was insulated from predatory international capital. Thus breaking the development curse of middle-income economies.
Marcuses critique of the New Left is spot on; esp. considering this was shot in 1977.
What does the new left say today?
Give me sexual liberation and I won't criticize your economic policies! The left use to represent the working class, not no more tho.
He is the one who created the new left.
@@guilherme2322 He helped create it. Remember Marcuse was used by the American brass to draw divisions between the more class focused left at the time.
@@justmeh88 Yes. The left is far more concerned about this now lol.
the Austrian painter wasn't wrong about this type.
They had the same vision and same means but wrong moral basis
It seems like any system is restricted by innate human frailties: envy and jealousy and violence
Never one mention about how to deal with those issues. It's always the failure point.
Why didn't he mention part of the plan was to have radical sex education in schools?
Didn't get round to it, I suppose
Because if they exposed their plan for what it really is, uneducated (or over educated, rather) idiots would never adopt their ideology.
@@ThePkmnMaster54 facts 100
I just realized I am watching an interview of two dead persons. Weird in a sense.
How weird do you feel reading a book written by a person who's dead couple of thousands years ago?
@@mehranshargh Not that weird actually. The video feels weird because we see human beings, that once were, interact.
So? 🙄
not dead enough
Hegel foresaw all of this with his Master and Slave Dialectic idea.
A Master class can choose to give up some of it's privileges and advantages either to
truly bring about an equality of rights or as a method to stave off a violent revolution from the Slave class.
Yes, this is where Marx got his idea of Bourgeois vs Proletariat, he was heavily influenced by Hegel
This isn't what Hegel means by Herrschaft and Knechtschaft. Without getting into the historical philosophical development reflected in its time, what is meant is that the two forms of self cosnciousness refer to each other and thus depend on one another's recognition. The forms which this division takes, however, appear at first to be the inverse of what they essentially are: The master at first appears to be the essence of the slave, as the slave is beholden to the master by way of labouring for them whereas the master is a being unto themselves which is independent and thus free of the slave. Yet, through the process of labouring, the slave comes to realize the necessity of their own freedom from the master by way of recognizing themselves in the products of their labour and not merely as an appendage of the master. Conversely, because the essence of self consciousness is the externalization of ones internal content, the master stagnates precisely because they are not self actualizing but are in fact beholden to the labour of the slave for their own 'self actualization'.
The Master nor the slave chooses this back and forth, but rather sets this necessary upheaval into motion by way of their activities.
@@henryberrylowry9512 What you have described is the background to what I stated.
Neither the Master nor the Slave is completely unconscious of the process that is taking place.
There can be and is conscious maneuvering.
@@thenowchurch6419 However, the slave or labourer has considerably less bargaining power or manouvrebility & it will take considerable self-sacrifice to get into the arena of middle or upper class, hence the propensity of crime / corruption as a shortcut to climbing the ladder...especially in Africa (where I reside & grew up)
@@gysgijsbers4202 No doubt.
There must be a moral re-armament among a critical mass of the laborer class before society can be transformed and that is a drawn out process.
Some of his words are quite insightful especially when you think about the huge gap between the current workers’ movements in China and the complete indifference of the public towards them. Now most of the people don’t only lose chains, they lose more. I’ve heard many comments on them like “ridiculous “ “must be taken advantage by someone” and “stupid “ none of which I agree obviously. Many US politicians dreamed of the liberation of China after the increase of middle class while they know nothing about what Marcuse and other Frankfurt school scholars have said before that in an advanced industrialized society, the control and suppression are comprehensive. Today in China some students from universities have come to show their support to workers, they still use a relatively old strategy and couldn’t get more social attention. ( Though this also resulted from the powerful control on the internet by the government)
Why is it that it seems the majority of comments on video lectures about the Frankfurt school philosophers are written by proto-fascists that never seem to have bothered to read even the most basic of Greek philosophical texts?
Because the Neo-Con, Proto-fascist, Conservative Right Wing Nuts are not bright and educated people. They are Anti-Intellectuals who cling desperately to a clearly failed world view and the problem is that no matter how much educated people try to convince them they will never admit they are wrong and will never change their world view, even in the face of evidence. They are poorly educated and books are foreign to them.
It's not the intellectualism that these "proto-fascists" are opposed to. In fact, there are quite a few intellectuals on the right: Thomas Sowell, Paul Johnson, and Charles Krauthammer immediately come to my mind as examples. Instead, it the elitism, the snark that drips from your comment that mocks the common sense of the ordinary man and demands the subjugation of the individual conscience to the sensibilities of the intellectual inbred elites. That is what the typical "conservative right wing nuts" disdain.
Zachary Holler Don't forget Martin Heidegger. He was an intellectual on the right.
Indeed. I know many people who like his ideas and deplore his life. I, personally, have not use for his philosophy and I doubt you would find many conservatives (especially where I live, America) who would find his philosophy pivotal or even helpful to the conservative movement. He is nowhere near as popular or seminal as Russel Kirk or Edmund Burke.
Zachary Holler Oh you don't think so? He was an actual scholar and his post-structural thought is still taught in schools, whereas the names you listed above are anti-intellectual talking heads who make their living creating spin for news media and corporate PR think tanks.
Excellent. The policy makers do NOT make policy based on the will of the people, but the will of the dollar. This has been proved by the Investment Theory. Magee is a generalist. As fond of him and his programs as I am, he falls into certain traps as a result. His counterarguments are based on a rather shallow interpretation of Marx, politics, so-called "capitalist" economy, etc., and he exhibits the characteristics of the "One Dimensional Society." Marcuse is as relevant today as ever.
Thank you for posting that. That was the first time I've ever heard a member of the Frankfurt school speak for himself. Marcuse seems "elite" to me. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) I believe he would be appalled by the vulgarity, banality, and intolerance of modern progressive America.
It was part of Engels plan for what we're seeing today, using grievance studies with holistic statistics holistic auto ethnography form disparagement and a nihilistic covert narcissist no longer teaching subject and content replacing it with activism identity politics which is Marxism relabeled/repackaged... Their outline was introduced comparing it to a "boiling frog" systemic institutional betrayal. I'm starting to understand why Europe burned the books related to training Marxism in education.
Well, the main thing that’s wrong with it is that he is a member of “the elite” claiming to represent what’s best for the proletariat, and essentially claiming to speak for them.
For me, the Best enterview. Both show your vision of left and why no of the right too? I liked as Marcuse understands elite, a question deep. Thank you so much!
I confess that the interlocutor Bryan Magee was unknown to me. His discomfort (masking outright hostility, I think) regarding Marxism is given some expression in this talk with Herbert Marcuse. The interview format is a convenient one for a presiding opponent. When his challenges to the subject are met with unwelcome arguments, he is able to subside into the protective undergrowth of the prescriptive norm- "I'd like to go further in refuting you but I'm only here to ascertain your views." He says as much when Marcuse invites him to respond. A much richer and riskier dialogue is thus avoided.
I've just google his name and learned that Professor Magee was a Labour Party MP as well as a distinguished scholar. He stood on the right wing of the party, in opposition to the leadership of Michael Foot, and joined the short-lived SDP in the split of 1982. His political career came to an end in the subsequent general election.
It may seem odd to express curiosity towards the interviewer in this instance. Marcuse was, after all, a major figure in western philosophy, and he's the focus of this presentation. But I've always found the cultural role of the interviewer to be both important and intriguing, in contrast to its accompanying pose of disinterested elicitation. And I don't mean this of Professor Magee specifically. The interviewer sits in a sniper's nest. He may never fire a round, but if he does he will do so with the knowledge that he is already in that place of retreat which guarantees his safety. His target remains exposed, and he has only to rustle the leaves in order to restore tranquility and order.
Link from contemporary "Critical Theory" back to the "Frankfurt School" at time 31:24.
Didn't Herb godfather the whole SJW culmination we see in the American academy of 2016?
No.
I know im 2 years late to the party, but since the whole movement against racism, sexism and so forth came from them, you could say that the primordial form of it did originate from them. Even then however they never really had good intent.
Yes. He did.
Absolutely, that's crystal clear. And most of those brainwashed zombies don't have an idea about that, even though it's al written, planned and well documented. But before him you can also thank Antonio Gramsci for that.
Kinda. However he was used.
A great TV program about influental philosophers. A big thank to the person that uploaded this. I am especially grateful to have the oportunity to see this program about Herbert Marcuse, a true gem, very difficult to find. Very important document for all the successive generations too.
as a penumbrae document to the anti human communist theorists to political correct critical theory.
+jeffrey pierce Go read a book, you paranoid moron.
so you support communism...communist philosophy in american academia? i don't...it's wrong headed and dangerous.
Academia is generally garbage and has zero to do with communism. I didn't even mention it anyhow.
marcuse was a communist academic who swayed huge cultural influence...and still does today. feminism and all the branches of neo marxist thought rely heavily on his and other frankfurt academics.
When your enemy speaks the truth!
What truth?
At the beginning Marcuse mentioned the general destructiveness and brutal "male" character of the society the students "saw before their eyes" yet it culminated in contradictory behaviour much like that of the October Revolution. The degradation of the environment,education is currently happening in capitalist/socialist country(Canada,occupied by the Trudeau). Just because fascism was military defeated does not mean it ceases to exist internally. They than spoke of how Marxism precipitated fascism but they did not speak of how it precipitated anti nationalism and one worldism(in a Canadian context,idea latched onto by Trudeau sr.) Marcuse also speaks in very broad terms when he mentions the "alienating" labour people may have had to perform in all their lives leaving out the faculty of choice as if we are all automata.Marxian theory has not been corroborated in the development of Wilsonian concepts(well received by Vladimir Lenin) rather than capitalist ones which is about high government interventionalism unlike other forms of capitalism. At 24:00 notice magee comments "Like the medieval churchman predicting the end of the world" note surprising given the value theory nonsense of Marxian economics. The Marxian concept of alienation is also awfully trivial before according to Marcuse it had been trivialized. A concept which generalizes circumstances as if everyone were a manual labourer. More psychologizing than substance. Marcuse also blames the mass pollution on capitalism,but is deeply socalist(Very near to the original Marxism,but still relevant) is the most materialistic,scammer ridden,polluted country in the world. Why this partiality?He also says all domination until today was patriarchal? Does he not know of the royal families infront of his eyes and their influence in building a national culture to which all adhere? The specific "feminine" qualities he speaks of are actually being shunned by seemingly the same "womens liberation" movement he speaks of. He than condemns male character as "violent and brutal" with more general psychologizing,I could the same thing in general terms about women being materialistic,envious and grossly competitive.I do agree with Marcuse on aesthetics and language(near towards the end of the program) it is just that there is more to critique than to admire.
As a woman I cringe with him discussing sexism. The women’s movement in many ways ‘efeminized’ women. Instead of elevating us for powerful contributions to civilization and evolution, anything deemed uniquely female is devalued. Isn’t that the definition of misogyny?
Gracias! Brillante.
Anyone else think he looks like one of those "tiny face" memes?
Free speech is good, until it is not.
OMG not even five minutes into it and Marcuse pulls the fascist, racist, and bigot cards! It all makes sense now.
Welcome to Critical Theory. If you haven't read Rules for Radicals you should.
Hate words used to stifle opposition while they destroy western civilization. It is psychological warfare. Political correctness is a deadly form of thought control.
Zachary Holler Lol u denying those things exist in the world? C'mon bro. Have you read any Marcuse? Or are u just going Rambo on youtube?
Daniel Mudd I didn't deny they exist, but they certainly are not as common as the Left accuses its opponents to be.
So fascism, racism, and sexism don't exist? What a fucktard.
Identity Politics is eating the left up from the inside out .. Thank God
That’s part of the plan. The aim is the collapse of everything, and of society. Then violent revolution and the rise of socialism. You could even say, build back better.
Interesting that the interviewer's critiques of Marcuse (which M defends very well) are much weaker since 2008.
We can see how Ms theories are actually much more relevant now than there were in 1977 when this video was recorded.
The theory has not aged and it fits the present even more than the 60s/70s.
"In a genuine socialist society labor, full time alienated labor, would no longer be the measure of wealth and value...In a authentic socialist society, men and women could live their life without fear, without being compared to spend their entirely adult existence, in alienated performances?" At around 10:28 he is saying Marx, envisioned a society that did not place value on labor, productivity etc. Isn't that to be expected from an intellectual? Sounds like Marx and his followers want to reorganize society to put themselves, intellectuals, at the top of the hierarchy.
Yup.
No. That's a very shallow interpretation. In a socialist society, the need and status of an intellectual per se would be diminished. With a qualitatively different kind of life, with people not having to engage in alienated labour, they would be perfectly efficiency in analysing their material conditions, and ths pervading reality around them. They wouldn't need a Marcusse to formulate it for them.
@@abhishekparija400 so you dream it will be the other proclamation of “end of history” where “perfect society” will emerge and everyone will be happy. I am sorry to disappoint you but it will never end. critical theorists will find something else to critic unless “big brother” in this “ brave new world” will not shot them down. By the way, socialism will disintegrate itself as people will lose motivation to perform (work hard and challenge themselves as it happened in USSR; popular question with suspicion back then was “ do you need more than others?”) and gradually degraded.
@@abhishekparija400 even socialists knew that socialism will never work,that is why they invented this idea of new socialist man.socialism is just one other religion and ideology not economic theory based on scientific reason and data
Freire echoed the concern that liberation is in the hands of the oppressed, while his disciples (i.e. Giroux and McClaren) started building the same sort of insuperable rhetoric that was unavailable to the masses. I enjoyed the defense of the "turgid" language though, particularly in terms of "a rupture with conformity" and necessarily reflecting the complexity of the issues. More to think about :)
Is this the old man that the piano scene in beneath the silver lake?
I thought Marcuse is outdated. I am wrong. I will re-read his works right from now.
4:45 "was a blatant contrast between the tremendous available social *wells* and its miserable, destructive and wasteful use".
Zen Doctor Marcuse and ze use _(his young followers)_ started poisoning zose wells.
I found Fromms work surrounding alienation made a lot of sense in that he framed it in terms of how we identify with things within consumer society and in turn we tend to identify within our relationships with the same mode of objectification as we would with products we buy. It's not hard to see how many men today view women as some sort of possession they own and little more. Talk of feelings and emotions are often met with annoyance.
Marcuse and Fromme are just code for replace all whites, replace Christianity, disempower males and remove biological truths such as gender, race, and sexuality only for whites, males, Christians and heterosexuals. I know, how about you people leave us alone and stop flooding our continents with fake refugees and calling us racists with some pseudo intellectual babble, should we disagree.
lol okay then. Read The Sane Society or anything by Fromm and you'll see how stupid you sound right now. You're over generalizing in a big way if you think some questionable ideas that may have came from the Frankfurt School reflect any kind of fundamental ideology.
Aside from that, who the fuck is this 'us' you speak of? Are you actually identifying with skin color? I presume you don't know that it's a mistake to identity in ways in which you see yourself as a victim, especially as a collective. Such attitudes will ensure you'll be the SJWs of the near future.
I don't care about what people identify as. I am a white, male, Christian, heterosexual, that is biological reality not what I identify as lmao. The exact thinking from the Frankfurt school leads people to generalise about terrible white, male, Christians and brilliant "other" people that need to flood our countries to replace us. How can you say that there is no fundamental ideology. Adorno in the Authoritarian personality did his studies on white Americans and found them to be high authoritarians with his "f scale" - f for fascist. They only did the studies on white Americans. Hence the popular thinking, terrible whites and their slave history when everyone had slaves, terrible west where nationalism can brew Naziism but Tibettan, Palestinian, African, South American nationalism is brilliant. Yes we all know what the Frankfurt School is code for.
That's your choice, but if you don't pay attention to how to identify then you don't actually think for yourself. Instead you'll likely over identify with groups which of course makes you a collectivist.
Identity is subjective, not biologically based. Think of culture for example.
No my white, male, heterosexual basis is not just an identity, not a choice, its simply biology. I might want to identify as a giraffe but that doesn't make me a giraffe. I must have lots of terrible cultural hegemony from identifying with these repressive authoritarian native European white groups you see. Of course people within the Frankfurt School social sciences don't have any cultural hegemony at all, its not like they aren't all parroting the same thing at the end of the day... free people from white male Christian western imperialism oppression and authoritarianism and remove these structures, celebrate the other who is much better yawn yawn.........
If I was playing white nationalist buzzword bingo this comment section would surely allow me to win.
mwstriker98 I don't know about that. It seems pretty tame by today's standards.
Idiot
"Contempt for Intellectuals because they are only Intellectuals
and don't achieve anything in reality."
From his own mouth. 6:44
Lol
thanks for sharing this video - a fascinating conversation!
I would also like to point out a few things I have seen in these comments I am seeing. Marcuse actually criticisms both Marx AND the left. Though not all sociologists delve into these things, it really should not be surprising that he, a sociologist, touches on sexism, racism, poor education systems, and other such things. Also interesting is what seems to be hatred merely because he is Jewish.
He's hated because all he can do is endlessly deconstruct. Isn't that the whole point of the Frankfurt school?
Love it when Central planners know so much more than the collective unwashed
This video is great. It help me lot in my western marxism philosophy class.
It's pointless to discuss about socialism or comunism as an alternative to capitalism. We just have to compare the US with Cuba, Venezuela for instance. The US has always been the country that millions of people all over the world want to come to and the socialist countries people want to flee from. There's no guessing why. There's no need to test this absurdity any longer, it's not only evil, it's insane. For all the socialists out there, unite yourselves and go to Cuba and make it a great nation on your own, without the need of anything from a capitalist nation. *Spoil alert!*: You're going to be doomed.
Of course you say this as if the United States doesn't send the CIA to coup a country that tries anything even remotely left. How about when the United Fruit company in Guatemala told the U.S government that the Guatemalan government wanted to nationalize the farming, so they would lose major profit. Can you guess what happened? CIA started a coup. Same thing can be said of Venezuela, and even Brazil right now with operation car wash.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.
35:09 Modern feminism
I am watching this for on of my sociology classes and I must agree with my teacher, Marcuse is quite the brilliant man. I find his theories such as the One-Dimensional Man very interesting to say the least. To repeat what my teacher taught us: The Frankfurt school was one made up of bright Jewish individuals both male and female but they did not stay in Germany long because of the rise of Nazism and thus dispersed with many ending up in the US.
Whats interesting is instrumental rational versus value rational. Instrumental being what is efficient while value is more about emotions. Our teacher gave a good example: If a student goes through a heavy breakup but still comes to class that is instrumental rational. If the student calls in and says they cannot come in because of the breakup than it is value rational. Coming to class is the efficient action while not going is based on emotions and feeling. This is not to say one is good or bad. Marcuse, and others, said that instrumental is not wholly evil but just very dominant to the point there is no hope and value rational will all but disappear. Bureaucracy is a good example of trying to make a society as efficient as possible but many who have done their taxes know that this is not so.
Habermas, another student at the Frankfurt school, however, said there is hope. We just take the system that promotes instrumental rational and put value rational in its place. A society where everyone contributes, one with no bias media but just knowledge, one that gives children a good honest education. Obviously rules and laws are important but so is caring for one another and treating each other like humans with basic human respect.
I kinda have the feeling philosophers such as Marx and Marcuse are secretly romanticists, seeing modern capitalism as destructing man's intrinsic needs, resulting in alienation. However, where I disagree with Marx and Marcuse is that they assumed egalitarianism. They do not see, in my opinion, that hierarchy and hierarchical status rises from nature. A truly Marxist society is not possible for the fact that human beings are not born with the same capabilities and the same potente. It therefore probably is a dysgenic ideology, trying to vanish the distinction between the stronger and the weaker. Fascism, in turn, appeared as a reaction of the eugenic side of society, wanting to protect societal structure from falling into a regression to the mean.
Nevertheless, I share their critique on alienation and therefore, in my opinion, a society as close to natural law should rise up. Key is the re-establishment of some kind of Zeitgeist which values striving for improvement, traditional values etc.
The psychopaths that use the government to wage war against humanity....
@@alfredsigurdsson9196 Marx did not believe in egalitarianism. Quoting from an essay arguing this point;
Marx and Engels are often depicted as egalitarians by people on the right. In reality Marx and Engels rejected equality as a social ideal and as a permanent yardstick against which social arrangements should be judged. This can be seen in Marx and Engel’s reaction to the programme of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.
In March 1875 Engels complained in a letter that the programme mistakenly advocated “[t]he elimination of all social and political inequality”, rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions”. For Engels, the goal of total social equality was impossible and represented the ambitions of an under-developed form of socialism. He wrote,
“As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.”
Link: anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-were-not-egalitarians/
@@calc2323 thanks for the response. Marx argues one can only be in favour of equality along specific dimensions, such as equality of cake consumption, and never equality as an abstract ideal. What I meant to say, and I see the wrong choice of words in my first comment, is that they believe in equal distribution of wealth.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
This famous quote of Marx, from the same work as your quotes, already shows Marx' conviction of human inequality.
Rationality is not emotional. "Value rational" is a nonsense term being used to induce cognitive dissonance.
"I must agree with my teacher, Marcuse is quite brilliant." Are you quite brilliant? If not, how would you know how brilliant Marcuse was?
The New Left basically did nothing but constantly reexamine, it's absurd to assert otherwise when you take the large picture into account. His essential argument is it wasn't reexamined in the right way according to his view of stages of development according to Marx, but even Marx said stages of development did not always develop in the same order, for example in letters to Vasulich about the potential of the Mirs in Russia.
Of all the interviews McGee has done, he's never attempted to argue against what his interviewee was saying. What is it about challenging the foundations of his own comforts and privileges that caused him to do this?
If you knew anything abour Bryan MaGee, you'd know that he was born *Working-Class* and had a _un_-privileged life.
I listen to the first 2 minutes and it made me realize we as a species are still completely ignorant and have a lot of growing up to do. Neither side is right or wrong. They are simply confused. And I believe our short life spans are a key factor to why we rinse and repeat this bullshit
he seems like such a nice geezer
at 20:54 the [INAUDIBLE] is Engels
Appreciates! updated.
anyone sources or anything like that for me, as i am doing research about neomarxism, please?
I would take what he says with a smidgeon of salt, but I believe he says more truth than lies and I believe that anyone who would dismiss him may apply more folly than wisdom.
You don't have to agree with Marcuse but why assume any lies at all? Marcuse is perfectly open about his beliefs - you can read his books, his lectures, his interviews. Why assume any dishonesty here?
Ídolos con pies de barro
Magee, on form as ever, hits home with his final point regarding the pomposity of Critical Theory, and Marcuse isn't convincing in his reply. If a radical approach to language is truly needed, why stop with writing? Why doesn't he adopt its opaque, mannered style in speech, if indicating the 'rupture with conformity' is paramount? If he truly believes normal speech is corrupted by capitalist power structures, surely by playing the game at all he's lost already.
Marcuse - probably one of the most evil men ever to walk the earth.
Why
@@joewill7023 his work hugely contributed to the degenerate ideology in power today. The sexual revolution ruined women and families.
@@fratercorleonis Not evil but blind.
@@00MSG evil very evil 😈
Not only is ‘cultural Marxism’ an anti-communist fiction, but the ‘Frankfurt school’ ceased to be a coherent system of thought the more time passed after it left Frankfurt. A common interest in combining the insights of psychoanalysis with Marxist theory, and a wish to understand the reasons why the German working class turned towards fascism, is what drew them together. After their exile they began to go their different ways. Erich Fromm had some sharp debates with Marcuse on both Marxism and psychoanalysis, both of which he argued Marcuse had misrepresented in Eros and Civilisation. In the sixties Fromm was probably more influential than Marcuse and yet neither of these men even mention him! He was a socialist humanist of course which is why the American conservatives all ignore him now, I guess, since his compassionate attitude to human suffering doesn’t suit their narrative.
Pluckrose is probably the best exponent of a liberal critique of post-modernism and she at least makes clear that social justice postmodernism is not derived from Marxism.
Is he trying to be purposely abstruse to conceal how patently awful his ideas would be if elucidated plainly?
Yea he is
To those a bit more curious I strongly recommend Oswals Spengler, Solzenicyn..
A couple of radical anti-semites? No, thanks
Solzhenitsyn was a liar.
Angry red wasps swarm the -commi- comment section
I guess no matter where you go on RUclips, you can't escape the cancerous comments like most of those on here. Not at all surprised.
"devil" lol
Oy vey ✡️✡️✡️✡️
I wonder why he didn't mention Walter Benjamin.
Anyone else think hear Bertrand Russell's voice?
God I love Marcuse.
Also, I feel it’s important to note that rightists act like postmodernism is a new thing that the left is utilizing. Not at all, in fact it’s been around for quite a long time and is falling out of academic favor, along with theories like poststructualism.
In addition to this postmodernism, while usually socialistic, is not inherent to the left. It can be utilized by the right as well.
It's falling out of favor because it's ridiculous.
much like flashing the cascade for 44 minutes
"[I]nferiority complex, some kind of a self-inflicted masochism, which found expression,
among other things, in this contempt for intellectuals because they are only intellectuals...". Sounds pretty relevant to what we see today with the yeeting of experts in almost all subject matters. Not just criticizing the reliance of experts, but ignoring them in all cases where it conflicts with either emotions or financial matters. Where we see scientists and historians as the ones that produce "fake news" rather than politicians and billionaires that do.
‘Lauging in post covid lab leak news’😂
This guy is the closest I’ve ever seen to a real-life cyclops 👁
Why his face so small though
philosopher? More like traitor to wisdom.
@@auroraorha Well this is the lowest point socialist have stooped down to, as evident by the language of your comment. I feel so sorry for Marx. :(
@@yogeshsagar9623 Somebodies mad that they got criticized over their English skills...
So many "holes" in their ideologies, many of them intentionally made to misdirect ... This movement caused huge problems in Germany and it's continued movement using psyops instead of foundational equal and fair structure is destructive to anyone that isn't a hedonistic. So disappointed that our society is less than because of this movement.
The reasons the Marxists failed is their ideologies should have helped to "fix" societies through criticism not meant to cause more problems through intentional sabotage. The systemic dumbing down of students through Frankfurt school aka the school of critical theory's using outlined tactics such as holistic statistics holistic auto ethnography and irrational obedience indoctrination. In 1950's the introduction of dialectical behavior techniques to cause further discourse, this person seems very intelligent but highly doubt he's had enough world experience. The subconscious he speaks of is the "computer brain" and the impressions such as through Prussian obedience. The marriage he speaks of is I guess cognitive dissonance? This man explains the destructive impressions expressed in the future, was this social experiment planned? The politicians are definitely controlled economically through lobbying!
That interviewer is one intelligent mofo. I like!!
What's with the paranoid Nazis in the comments?
aren't they all
Interesting, another ploy in the marxist
catalogue is to call anyone who disagrees with them a nazi. Maybe your philosophy is just disgusting.
@@JBroughton2 AnOtHeR pLoY iN tHe MaRxIsT cAtAlOgUe
schizo idiots
@@JBroughton2 Maybe people are in these comments wistfully regretting that Marcuse wasn't murdered in the Holocaust and promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Maybe anti-marxism is a core tenet of fascist ideology and as such, comments sections like these give fascists a place to wave their hate boners. Maybe an inability to reckon with difficult ideas results in calls for arbitrary murder. :^)
The filthy mass murders of humanity..May they all rot in hell.
Who controls the economy of the USA?....the Federal reserve....
Between The Lines Marxists would most likely be ok with executing certain members of the federal reserve. Also its a capitalist institution so...
He was awesome, thank you for sharing this video! The Inaudible at 4:37 is "WORK": the degradation of work, and at 4:57 is "USE" :wasteful use.
Thanks for your help. I updated the subtitle.
you’re welcome
what an evil man
The Inaudible at 4:52 is "wealth", isn't it?
It is! thanks, I update it.
well intentioned maybe....but the path to hell was paved with good intentions!
When will we stop listening to Anyone from Germany
This guy is not a German native. Parasite of mankind.
The devil who has destroyed the West.
People, if you're just here to go "oh, I know what this guy is talking about, because communism is bad", you are talking out of your ass. Marcuse, though I personally agree very little with him, is still a great intellectual whose work needs to be studied and respected before you can go around taking shits on it. Learn to study nuance, even if it's nuance that you disagree with, FFS.
Have you ever lived in communist country? I did, and believe me, communism is really enslaving political system. Nice words, manifests, lies, propaganda.. and terror.. I choose freedom.
DimebagVision She already was. How do you think he came about.
you are a dense idiot if your general value of a scumbag weasel like Marcusa is positive.
Your comment serves as an applied example of his essay “Repressive Tolerance”. Full of contradictions and unsustainable idealism.
He is talking entirely out of his arse. He made the perfect the enemy of the good and laid the goundwork for the morally absolutist imbeciles that infest our culture at the moment. They are the anti intellectualists that this person speaks of. His juvenile, anti human ideas have set in train a process that can only lead to utter ruin, and we are well on the way
Too much to lose.
pretty sure marcuse says "its cruelty" at 3:59
Thanks! updated.
you're welcome.
Possessed, evil man.
Fuck you bias-carrying -senseless-son-of-the-bitch
Interview to Sauron.
premature popularization of the terribly complex problems we face today. excuse for turgidness. sick. arrogant!
He married Marx and Heidegger and then Marx and Freud. Very intellectual, hehehe
Why doesn't YT have a Wikipedia "replacement theory" banner below this video?
blah blah blah
Dangerous blah blah
This makes too much sense, considering Trump.
We are still looking to get a better society: inequality is sky rocketing, many people left behind...Trump is just a sympthom of a much larger social phenomon at large.
Some of the criticisms of Marxism, although they back away from Marxist solutions to the theoretical problems raised in the direction of liberal Anti-Communism and equation of Monopoly Capitalism or even Fascism with Actually-Existing Socialism, do highlight real issues that Marxism-Leninist does actually itself address, but that have at various points been weak spots in ideological confrontation of the Worker's Movement with its opponents such as the Theory of Alienation, or the application of new forms of psychological and social Manipulation under both Monopoly Captialism and Actualy-Existing Socialism and their differences. But we are not supplied with either Marxist-Leninist or other viable solutions to these problems (which Marcuse claims are outside the scope of the interview) in his written works! Other often controversial aspects of Marxism with Ruling Intellectual Circles such as Theory of the Rate of Profit to Fall are endorsed. Many of the problems that are not dealt with ARE addressed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bukharin, Lukacs, Lukacs's student Istvan Meszaros, the Marxist Philosopher Collectives of the German Democratic Republic (including Alfred Kosing, Erich Hahn, Wolfgang Eichhorn I et al), and their Soviet Contemporaries. That is where to look for ACTUAL explanations to problems like alienation. Not in ahistorical applications of categories from Freud or One-Dimensional theoretical vulgarizations of and "improvements" on Marxist Theories like one find in Marcuse's work.
By the by, what was Marcuse's personal situation during the 1950's. Many Communists were suffering HORRIBLY during that period. Was he rising from his sick bed like William Z Foster to continue the fight? Or did he take up residence at "Hotel Abyss" as Lukacs accused others of his Critical Theory group as having done? Given the levels of corruption in the 1950's Psychoanalytic Community that he was rubbing elbows with as an ex Office of Strategic Services Employee, did he stay clean? It would take excellent anchoring and a huge amount of personal discipline to do it and continue ACTUALLY functioning for the Workers Movement. Did he have such discipline and if so who anchored his conduct or are we to believe he was just that excellent at being adrift? It could have come from Germany. Did it? I think he may well have become Unmoored! Why was he suddenly promoted as the Patron Saint of the New Left rising to the status of instant celebrity? Did it come from the KGB or the CIA and which networks within either agency? One should ask these and similar questions about any instant celebrity including his world famous student who was quickly catapulted into the leadership of CPUSA!
His comments on aesthetics could point in the direction of the balance between Socialist Realism and Heroic Socialist Realism as it was advocated in the USSR and other Warsaw Pact Countries, but does it? From what I remember from his Reason and Revolt, although it engages with the New Left Art Scene it does not seem particularly theoretically enlightening. Was there helpful intelligence coding or coordination for the Left in it as he seems to indicate was present in Adorno's work in this interview? If so what networks of that period were they coding for and what were they coding?
All of those questions need Reason-Based, Evidence-Based answers. It would be far easier to obtain them if so many of the people involved in Critical Theory AND the Right of the CPUSA hadn't proved themselves to be horribly corrupt and useless, or of those who weren't, hand't already passed. Would be an interesting project for a historical reconstruction and useful for getting a better idea of what at least a portion of the US and German Left actually looked like in the 1960's and 1970's.
As for those "socially-conditioned qualities of femininity" he recommends, at least from what I've seen of the behavior of many of the "rising stars" of Intelligent female leaders (both those with corruption issues and those without) we have passed the Rubicon in the direction of a pandora-like feminine aggression that makes Marcuse's comments a bit outdated. We should focus on appropriate network standards with oversight of both genders to prevent either misandry or misogyny in our frequently highly alienated work. ;)
32:12 I'd disagree with this statement, life typically imitates art in many regards especially in television (they call it programming for a reason) ....
Europe frey 🇩🇪🤚🏻
Hahaha, 19:50
A beautiful soul. May his memory be a blessing for generations to come.
You have the soul of a dung beetle! Hey we can all play at this game!
chaya...you mean Satan...Lucifer...the many names and forms of the anti Christ...the enemy of existence.
Horrible human being.
marcuse seems like such a nice guy
:)
Of course Marcuse was not a philosopher of any distinction. He was a picture language smith. Simply putting words together to sound grammatically conventional, does not ensure any kind of conscious relevance or clear meaning and he is hiding under the “gift wrapping” of the German accent, which imparts a sense of authority, however tenuous. Herbert Marcuse was the architect of the student protests and anti-Vietnam riots, across the entire Western world, in the age of Aquarius, the late 1960s. In this time Marcuse was in his sixties, which is ironic considering the fact that Marcuse was the person who coined the phrase: ”Don't trust anyone over thirty”. Marcuse is also the original architect of what we call “woke”, in 2023. It used to be called “political correctness”, during the 1990s. Marcuse also advocated for the total proliferation of pornography and every kind of sexual perversion, throughout society, including adults having sex with children. Herbert Marcuse makes Hitler look like a girl guide. Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer decided to turn Marxism into a cultural warfare, instead of Karl Marx's original class warfare. So, the new surrogates of Marxism are 1) Multi-culturalism, 2) Civil Rights, 3) Feminism, 4) Environmentalism and 5) Sexual Liberation (equal rights for homosexuals).
38:05