"The level of development of the means of production of a society at any given time determine the formation of classes in that society and that in turn determines the relationships of individuals to each other" - When was the last time you heard something like that on British television?
Today, in spite of the workforce doubling (with women now working full-time), and new technology, we work longer and harder than ever. We have to be highly motivated, task-assertive, able to do several tasks simultaneously - multi-tasking, we call it even to get a job as a toilet attendant. We grind ourselves into the ground for companies that compete with other companies to persuade people to buy what they dont need and we lose our souls in the process. Thats alienated labour.
Fascism isn't just another word for bureaucracy you know, its has its own distinct ideology thats separate from Marxism and Liberalism. And Marxism is separate from Liberalism, to describe something as "far-left liberal fascism" is like describing someone as the tall short skinny fat man
@archdeaconj I think the fact that 'work' is now just sitting in front of a computer makes people not realize how much more time they're spending at work, because it doesn't feel like work, it just feels like a more formal continuation of school and home Internet time, and so the blaise character of modern work makes the lack of 'fruit' to show for it less disconcerting.
Whatever you think of him, definitely one of the most influential philosophers of his generation. Interested on his take on the New left movement, inspired by his writings...
@jasabbott The kindest thing one can say about Buchanan (the unacknowledged source of your quotations) is that he simply misunderstood the Frankfurt School philosophers. This sort of thing was anathema to them. They were appalled by what had been done in Marx's name. They saw linguistic techniques of manipulation - employed in even more subtle and sophisticated ways by the media in consumer-capitalist societies - as parasitic on language and a threat to the spontaneous development of societies.
@jasabbott Your tack here seems to be: Marcuse was for this, against that, I'm not, so Down With Marcuse! Generally, his values are grounded in his socio-political theory. They follow on from his insights into modern society, not the other way round. So it's his philosophy I'm interested in. That can be subjected to logical scrutiny, in a way values can't. Incidentally, the quote 'Members...' illustrates linguistic techniques of persuasion that the Frankfurt School was warning AGAINST.
Both forms of Fascism can be described as third positivist, although its seen as right wing because both Mussolini and Hitler aligned with the right wing of the political spectrum before coming into power. Its should also be noted that capitalism was very much left intact in Nazi Germany (for those who were part of the Majority at any rate) and that its populist appeals to the unemployed working class made by the Strasserist faction of the party were repressed in the Night of the Long Knifes.
The worker no longer has 'nothing to lose but his chains'. We are more trapped within the system today because we are more integrated into it. In Marxists day there were the bosses and the workers. Today, you are more likely to be in middle-management, somewhere on the pyramid between apex and base, in charge of those below you, answerable to those above. How can you organise and who would you organise with? You can hardly form a union with workers of equal status from other companies.
I hate to break this to you but Fascist theory has some core tenets to it that are aposed to the core tennets of Marxism. The USSR or The Peoples Republic of China might be called a kind of Fascism, but that is because both Maoism and Stalinism abandoned the core principles of Marxism i.e they imposed leadership on the working class from the outside, rather than allowing leadership emerging from the working class itself.
@1844Freddy Well it may be less disconcerting to the worker, but my argument was that it's puzzling - to anyone who thinks about it - that the equivalent labour output of today's society is quadruple (at a conservative estimate) what it was fifty years ago (because of new technology and women having doubled the workforce). Where is all this extra labour, inc. machine-equivalent labour, going?
@archdeaconj It's a good question, and I would say towards a self-imposed, subterranean neo-feudalism, perhaps? Feudalism in the middle ages was more overt, but what we have now is not too different--huge portions of society working and not making much progress, having to fight for their basic subsistence with every productive hour, while those at the top have limited productive behavior but most of the wealth and control.
@DumblyBrilliant Thx for the psychoanalysis, but it has nothing to do with the issue (so doesn't even warrant a rebuttal). I ask you again: WHAT precisely was it that I said that you considered a 'distortion of the truth' - and WHY?
@HokiesAndDawgs : i'm pretty sure you're wrong. Also, I'm talking about marx' philosophy - that is what he wrote, his critique of capitalism and it's contradictions. You seem to be talking about what's been done "in marx' name", regardless of the fact that his philosophy was almost entirely disregarded. Do you have something to say about marxism, as an "ism", that is to say as an ideology and a direction for mankind? Or do you just want to spew anti-semitism as if it's an argument in itself?
@jasabbott Another bit of linguistic trickery employed by the writer of your pilfered quotes is to cite part of a 1943 Soviet Party directive on how to silence criticism and then to IMPLY that it came from Marcuse. How does he do this? By introducing the citation as being '...from the horse's mouth' when he has just been talking about Marcuse. Any reader unfamiliar with Marcuse's work would falsely assume it came from Marcuse himself. Why twist the truth this way? Aren't you curious?
@1844Freddy But that's my point. Through use of computers and other technology labour output has increased many-fold. If 20 million was the working population (in the UK) fifty years ago and each worker worked 40 hours / week, then society's output then was 800 million man hrs/ week. Today with women working full-time, it's 1,600 million man hrs / week. With computers, automation etc, society's output must be double or treble or quadruple that! Where is the fruit of all these man hours?
@archdeaconj We work longer, yes, but not harder. People don't work hard, because that would imply that they aren't bored, that they are absorbed and engaged in their work. They mostly just surf the internet for 8 hours then come home and do that more.
@archdeaconj Also, I think you've touched on a central absurdity of capitalism: A more civil and free society would operate under the socialist tenet that society's wealth should be used to grant people the real freedom from toiling all day to secure food and shelter. I think this absurdity is masked by the psychological manipulation of PR firms installing materialistic wants in people, giving a goal to our endless wealth-maximizing.
@MrNotyag If you attack my argument, claiming there are logical flaws in it or adduce facts which you say refute it, then there may follow a fierce debate after which one of us emerges winner (tho' the other party may never openly admit s/he's wrong). Ideally, there is a move toward truth - tho' only in a rational, civilised exchange, If one of the parties just hurls abuse - or makes sarcastic comments (as in your case) - then there no such move toward truth.
Marx and Marcuse railed against the banality and emptiness of existence in a society where, as the beats put it, 'dreams are traded for gold on the floor of lifes stock exchange'. Modern man is not only alienated in the workplace, where he spends most of his life; he is alienated from his authentic self even when free of the workplace. His life-affirming energies are deadened - all except one: voracious greed for commodities which, at first a compensation, becomes a curse.
@archdeaconj Think about how serfs would've been controlled 600 years ago if lords had had the techniques of modern psychological propaganda, fused with technological advances in disseminating entertainment. Kings and nobles wouldn't have had to use overt violence, because servitude would have been self-imposed by serfs onto themselves, as it is now. That so much manufactured pleasure is available to us makes us feel guilty for challenging things. Domination by pleasure is neo-feudalism.
@jasabbott Oh, here we go...just when I thought we were having a civilised debate! What does it matter if I'm a leftist, rightist or pirate with a wooden leg? Let arguments stand on their own merit. Marcuse was AGAINST what you say he was for - not only against but vehemently against. You have a lot of writings by Marcuse online, this interview with Magee...why quote secondary sources anyway, never mind these lies, this mischief, by Buchanan. Pity Marcuse is not alive to defend himself!
@MrNotyag Look, I just want to know what you mean by 'the answer is utopian anthropological polemic against Western society." The answer to what? Do you mean the solution to Western society's problems? And by polemic, do you mean my argument? Do you mean Marcuse's philosophy? Or do you mean philosophy generally? Tell me what you mean and I'll respond to your comment.
"(some argue that it is not Fascism at all)" Morons may argue that but then you would have to ignore both the historical facts and the writings of Hitler himself.
You are leaving the argument before it can even begin. No need to get so excited (I am completely able to pursue an intellectual argument about Marxism). Your emotions are already getting the best of you. Prove yourself worthwhile of pursuing a discussion on the fallacies of Marxism without getting so emotional. Tell me: What does Marx mean by "alienated labor" and why is competition wrong? How do the means justify the end? What is the logical argument against capitalism?
@Dumbly What did you expect me to do, turn the other cheek? Look at your initial posting to me. Go on, look. It was vicious and personal - and in response to one by me that was perfectly civil. I'll tell you this: I am never - repeat NEVER - the first to hurl abuse. Go on, search TH-cam and see. It's something I just don't do. I don't need to. But when I am unjustly accused of distorting the truth, using 'tactics' and the rest, do you think I am going to let it drop? No way.
@jasabbott See how these smear merchants use linguistic trickery. The writer of your pilfered quotes daren't actually lie and say that the FS was in favour of psychological conditioning. So what does he do? He IMPLIES it. He says: 'The Frankfurt School introduced the idea of psychological conditioning as a means of changing the culture.' What he omits to say is that the FS introduced the idea only in the sense of exposing the extent to which it is endemic in modern society!
I find it funny that he criticizes the ruling class for manipulating the people's psyche, when his school has had such a tremendous impact on our culture today.
+TGGeko And one of Marcuse's main points is that the ideas of Marxism must be re-examined and critiqued, as societies change and we learn more about how societies can work. From my understanding, Marcuse points past the oppressors and the oppressed because both are embedded in the system, and act to reproduce it because of their internalized norms. Instead the system itself must be critically examined to determine whether it shapes our lives in an unjust and manipulative way. Instead of the freedom that Capitalism offers, or the failed attempts at socialism attempted in the East, he says that modern industrialized countries tend towards Totalitarianism as they mold the freedom of their subjects to make an easily controlled populace that generally benefits the richest among them.
I think he was really onto something until he got into Freudianism. Such a shame he was really getting somewhere and then completely undermined it all with pseudo-science and new religiously.
@jasabbott So how about quoting Marcuse himself to prove that that he was in favour of psychological conditioning? You can't, because he wasn't. He was totally and utterly against it. Look for it, I challenge you. You won't find it. Perhaps you'll then realise it's those rascals you quote who are into this kind of thing, not Marcuse. There's a lot I could say about that. Their deliberate use of linguistic techniques of deception to smear Marcuse and the FS is beyond contempt.
@FeignofCordor : did you remember to apply concern for your fellow human beings along with that common sense of yours? If yes, then your common sense is broken. If no, then maybe you should try that, if you'd like to understand. Did you even watch the video? And if so, do you have any objections, or are you just repeating what you've been indoctrinated to think... Without thinking for yourself?
By his labour, a worker makes something. But this object, by the fact of remaining the boss's property, turns into a commodity. Labour obviously doesn't produce things for the immediate benefit of the worker who makes them. Rather, it is the grist for someone else's mill, this is alienation. Capitalist alienation reduces us all to something less than human. Only by smashing class society can we free ourselves from the fetters of commodification.
@jasabbott If you read Marcuse yourself instead of parroting these smear merchants you'll see they turn on its head what he actually said. 'Individual thought [is] now absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination' (Marcuse) '[The Frankfurt School]...is trying to counter the control of consciousness by the established power structure' (Marcuse) Does this sound like someone who is in favour of psychological conditioning? Full references on request.
Also this idea of "forced equality" can only come from a misread and/or misunderstanding of Marx, "each according to his ability, to each according to his need. For Marx the historical process of class antagonisms inevitable led to emancipation of the working class, and through their victory all class is abolished. Hense why they are considered the only class that can carry out this revolutionary task. Historical Materialism init!
@1844Freddy I agree, the extra labour is going into producing goods and services for the super-rich - a kind of neo-feudalism, yes. I also think there is enormous waste e.g. in the effort that goes into persuading me to buy this or that product that I don't want, more effort in trying to persuade me NOT to buy that product but some other product I don't want instead. We need not work more than a few hours / day on average - but are socially conditioned to believe otherwise.
@Dumbly Amazing isn't it, how your sort thinks it's perfectly alright, perfectly acceptable, to be rude and offensive, yet start squealing about being insulted and intimidated when they receive a taste of their own medicine. What TH-cam needs is more people to hound riff raff like you until you behave in a more civilised manner. Then we could all look forward to gentle, urbane, rational debate - and, as is the norm with civilised exchanges, actually learn from one another.
or just be pu to work t in ANY factory or put to digging ditches -it might give the spoiled little middle -class brats a whole more appreciative outlook on life.
Its quite clear from you falling back on the old chestnut of "Marxism iz Fascism!!!!" that you are unable to see past your own entrenchment in ideology, thus its kind of pointless to debate you.
It has long been a banality among 'radical economists' that choice within the 'free market system' is already and always ideological; that rather than being 'value free,' choice (which is inevitably preconditioned) is an arbitrary a priori value. The 'free market' has never existed, it is a utopian construct designed to mask the 'social' forces that actually shape the economy. The theories of Friedman is as much a form of Ethics as Marx's, and are much more ridged, less adaptive than Marx.
I think its a mistake to see Marx as a Humanist, in fact I think Friedman's postion can be seen as more Humanist than Marx. Friedman bases his theories on the assumption that the human race and technological circumstances are at a constant, were as Marx and Engles were profoundly anti-Humanist in the sense that they formulated the human race and technological circumstances as a variable. Also, Individualism =/= Individuality
Herbert suffered from extreme flatulence and would often sicken the interviewer 💨💨💨💨
Marcuse does extraordinary work blending Freud's meta-psychoanalysis (the part usually left out by modern psychoanalysis) and Marxism. Fascinating!
"The level of development of the means of production of a society at any given time determine the formation of classes in that society and that in turn determines the relationships of individuals to each other" - When was the last time you heard something like that on British television?
This a a wonderful discovery for what I am looking into these days
Today, in spite of the workforce doubling (with women now working full-time), and new technology, we work longer and harder than ever. We have to be highly motivated, task-assertive, able to do several tasks simultaneously - multi-tasking, we call it even to get a job as a toilet attendant. We grind ourselves into the ground for companies that compete with other companies to persuade people to buy what they dont need and we lose our souls in the process. Thats alienated labour.
Great stuff, cheers.
Can anyone imagine this on the TV today? I mean any aspect of it?
The Frankfurt School were right - thank God for TH-cam!
It depends on what you mean by "TV". If you include TH-cam as part of TV, then yes. 🙂 PS: The only TV I watch is TH-cam.
Fascism isn't just another word for bureaucracy you know, its has its own distinct ideology thats separate from Marxism and Liberalism. And Marxism is separate from Liberalism, to describe something as "far-left liberal fascism" is like describing someone as the tall short skinny fat man
@archdeaconj I think the fact that 'work' is now just sitting in front of a computer makes people not realize how much more time they're spending at work, because it doesn't feel like work, it just feels like a more formal continuation of school and home Internet time, and so the blaise character of modern work makes the lack of 'fruit' to show for it less disconcerting.
Thanks! Looking forward to part 3!
Whatever you think of him, definitely one of the most influential philosophers of his generation. Interested on his take on the New left movement, inspired by his writings...
@jasabbott The kindest thing one can say about Buchanan (the unacknowledged source of your quotations) is that he simply misunderstood the Frankfurt School philosophers. This sort of thing was anathema to them. They were appalled by what had been done in Marx's name. They saw linguistic techniques of manipulation - employed in even more subtle and sophisticated ways by the media in consumer-capitalist societies - as parasitic on language and a threat to the spontaneous development of societies.
@jasabbott Your tack here seems to be: Marcuse was for this, against that, I'm not, so Down With Marcuse! Generally, his values are grounded in his socio-political theory. They follow on from his insights into modern society, not the other way round. So it's his philosophy I'm interested in. That can be subjected to logical scrutiny, in a way values can't. Incidentally, the quote 'Members...' illustrates linguistic techniques of persuasion that the Frankfurt School was warning AGAINST.
Both forms of Fascism can be described as third positivist, although its seen as right wing because both Mussolini and Hitler aligned with the right wing of the political spectrum before coming into power. Its should also be noted that capitalism was very much left intact in Nazi Germany (for those who were part of the Majority at any rate) and that its populist appeals to the unemployed working class made by the Strasserist faction of the party were repressed in the Night of the Long Knifes.
The worker no longer has 'nothing to lose but his chains'. We are more trapped within the system today because we are more integrated into it. In Marxists day there were the bosses and the workers. Today, you are more likely to be in middle-management, somewhere on the pyramid between apex and base, in charge of those below you, answerable to those above. How can you organise and who would you organise with? You can hardly form a union with workers of equal status from other companies.
I hate to break this to you but Fascist theory has some core tenets to it that are aposed to the core tennets of Marxism. The USSR or The Peoples Republic of China might be called a kind of Fascism, but that is because both Maoism and Stalinism abandoned the core principles of Marxism i.e they imposed leadership on the working class from the outside, rather than allowing leadership emerging from the working class itself.
@HumanActivitySystem That may be said of Market fundamentalists too.
@1844Freddy Well it may be less disconcerting to the worker, but my argument was that it's puzzling - to anyone who thinks about it - that the equivalent labour output of today's society is quadruple (at a conservative estimate) what it was fifty years ago (because of new technology and women having doubled the workforce). Where is all this extra labour, inc. machine-equivalent labour, going?
@archdeaconj It's a good question, and I would say towards a self-imposed, subterranean neo-feudalism, perhaps? Feudalism in the middle ages was more overt, but what we have now is not too different--huge portions of society working and not making much progress, having to fight for their basic subsistence with every productive hour, while those at the top have limited productive behavior but most of the wealth and control.
@DumblyBrilliant Thx for the psychoanalysis, but it has nothing to do with the issue (so doesn't even warrant a rebuttal). I ask you again: WHAT precisely was it that I said that you considered a 'distortion of the truth' - and WHY?
what do you mean by this
@HokiesAndDawgs : i'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Also, I'm talking about marx' philosophy - that is what he wrote, his critique of capitalism and it's contradictions.
You seem to be talking about what's been done "in marx' name", regardless of the fact that his philosophy was almost entirely disregarded.
Do you have something to say about marxism, as an "ism", that is to say as an ideology and a direction for mankind? Or do you just want to spew anti-semitism as if it's an argument in itself?
@jasabbott Another bit of linguistic trickery employed by the writer of your pilfered quotes is to cite part of a 1943 Soviet Party directive on how to silence criticism and then to IMPLY that it came from Marcuse. How does he do this? By introducing the citation as being '...from the horse's mouth' when he has just been talking about Marcuse. Any reader unfamiliar with Marcuse's work would falsely assume it came from Marcuse himself. Why twist the truth this way? Aren't you curious?
Have you worked in a factory?
@1844Freddy But that's my point. Through use of computers and other technology labour output has increased many-fold. If 20 million was the working population (in the UK) fifty years ago and each worker worked 40 hours / week, then society's output then was 800 million man hrs/ week. Today with women working full-time, it's 1,600 million man hrs / week. With computers, automation etc, society's output must be double or treble or quadruple that! Where is the fruit of all these man hours?
@archdeaconj We work longer, yes, but not harder. People don't work hard, because that would imply that they aren't bored, that they are absorbed and engaged in their work. They mostly just surf the internet for 8 hours then come home and do that more.
@archdeaconj Also, I think you've touched on a central absurdity of capitalism: A more civil and free society would operate under the socialist tenet that society's wealth should be used to grant people the real freedom from toiling all day to secure food and shelter. I think this absurdity is masked by the psychological manipulation of PR firms installing materialistic wants in people, giving a goal to our endless wealth-maximizing.
@SeedsofJoy I don't see that anywhere in the Doctrine of Fascism. In fact, there were Jews in the Italian Fascist party.
@MrNotyag If you attack my argument, claiming there are logical flaws in it or adduce facts which you say refute it, then there may follow a fierce debate after which one of us emerges winner (tho' the other party may never openly admit s/he's wrong). Ideally, there is a move toward truth - tho' only in a rational, civilised exchange, If one of the parties just hurls abuse - or makes sarcastic comments (as in your case) - then there no such move toward truth.
Marx and Marcuse railed against the banality and emptiness of existence in a society where, as the beats put it, 'dreams are traded for gold on the floor of lifes stock exchange'. Modern man is not only alienated in the workplace, where he spends most of his life; he is alienated from his authentic self even when free of the workplace. His life-affirming energies are deadened - all except one: voracious greed for commodities which, at first a compensation, becomes a curse.
@archdeaconj Think about how serfs would've been controlled 600 years ago if lords had had the techniques of modern psychological propaganda, fused with technological advances in disseminating entertainment. Kings and nobles wouldn't have had to use overt violence, because servitude would have been self-imposed by serfs onto themselves, as it is now. That so much manufactured pleasure is available to us makes us feel guilty for challenging things. Domination by pleasure is neo-feudalism.
@jasabbott Oh, here we go...just when I thought we were having a civilised debate! What does it matter if I'm a leftist, rightist or pirate with a wooden leg? Let arguments stand on their own merit. Marcuse was AGAINST what you say he was for - not only against but vehemently against. You have a lot of writings by Marcuse online, this interview with Magee...why quote secondary sources anyway, never mind these lies, this mischief, by Buchanan. Pity Marcuse is not alive to defend himself!
@MrNotyag Look, I just want to know what you mean by 'the answer is utopian anthropological polemic against Western society." The answer to what? Do you mean the solution to Western society's problems? And by polemic, do you mean my argument? Do you mean Marcuse's philosophy? Or do you mean philosophy generally? Tell me what you mean and I'll respond to your comment.
"(some argue that it is not Fascism at all)" Morons may argue that but then you would have to ignore both the historical facts and the writings of Hitler himself.
You are leaving the argument before it can even begin. No need to get so excited (I am completely able to pursue an intellectual argument about Marxism). Your emotions are already getting the best of you. Prove yourself worthwhile of pursuing a discussion on the fallacies of Marxism without getting so emotional. Tell me:
What does Marx mean by "alienated labor" and why is competition wrong? How do the means justify the end? What is the logical argument against capitalism?
@Dumbly What did you expect me to do, turn the other cheek? Look at your initial posting to me. Go on, look. It was vicious and personal - and in response to one by me that was perfectly civil. I'll tell you this: I am never - repeat NEVER - the first to hurl abuse. Go on, search TH-cam and see. It's something I just don't do. I don't need to. But when I am unjustly accused of distorting the truth, using 'tactics' and the rest, do you think I am going to let it drop? No way.
On its way...
@TheDavid2222 Racism and fascism are mutually exclusive. You can't have fascism without hatred and fear of the minority.
@jasabbott See how these smear merchants use linguistic trickery. The writer of your pilfered quotes daren't actually lie and say that the FS was in favour of psychological conditioning. So what does he do? He IMPLIES it. He says: 'The Frankfurt School introduced the idea of psychological conditioning as a means of changing the culture.' What he omits to say is that the FS introduced the idea only in the sense of exposing the extent to which it is endemic in modern society!
Marcuse, the swamp creature, also omits to say he introduced the idea in the context of his employment by the OSS/CIA.
I find it funny that he criticizes the ruling class for manipulating the people's psyche, when his school has had such a tremendous impact on our culture today.
scott edgar
Well, then thats doubly funny because marxism sees the world as one of opposites, of oppressors and the oppressed.
+TGGeko And one of Marcuse's main points is that the ideas of Marxism must be re-examined and critiqued, as societies change and we learn more about how societies can work. From my understanding, Marcuse points past the oppressors and the oppressed because both are embedded in the system, and act to reproduce it because of their internalized norms. Instead the system itself must be critically examined to determine whether it shapes our lives in an unjust and manipulative way. Instead of the freedom that Capitalism offers, or the failed attempts at socialism attempted in the East, he says that modern industrialized countries tend towards Totalitarianism as they mold the freedom of their subjects to make an easily controlled populace that generally benefits the richest among them.
@FeignofCordor : lol, did your priest tell you that?
I think he was really onto something until he got into Freudianism. Such a shame he was really getting somewhere and then completely undermined it all with pseudo-science and new religiously.
@jasabbott So how about quoting Marcuse himself to prove that that he was in favour of psychological conditioning? You can't, because he wasn't. He was totally and utterly against it. Look for it, I challenge you. You won't find it. Perhaps you'll then realise it's those rascals you quote who are into this kind of thing, not Marcuse. There's a lot I could say about that. Their deliberate use of linguistic techniques of deception to smear Marcuse and the FS is beyond contempt.
@FeignofCordor : did you remember to apply concern for your fellow human beings along with that common sense of yours? If yes, then your common sense is broken. If no, then maybe you should try that, if you'd like to understand.
Did you even watch the video? And if so, do you have any objections, or are you just repeating what you've been indoctrinated to think... Without thinking for yourself?
"far-left liberal fascism" that is by far the most idiotic thing I have ever read.
By his labour, a worker makes something. But this object, by the fact of remaining the boss's property, turns into a commodity. Labour obviously doesn't produce things for the immediate benefit of the worker who makes them. Rather, it is the grist for someone else's mill, this is alienation. Capitalist alienation reduces us all to something less than human. Only by smashing class society can we free ourselves from the fetters of commodification.
@MrNotyag Sorry, the answer to what? I'm not with you.
@jasabbott If you read Marcuse yourself instead of parroting these smear merchants you'll see they turn on its head what he actually said. 'Individual thought [is] now absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination' (Marcuse) '[The Frankfurt School]...is trying to counter the control of consciousness by the established power structure' (Marcuse) Does this sound like someone who is in favour of psychological conditioning? Full references on request.
true
@TheDavid2222 lmao
@edslittleworld When people talk about 'the good' in America, I can't even smile. I just feel despair. America is the scourge of the world.
Also this idea of "forced equality" can only come from a misread and/or misunderstanding of Marx, "each according to his ability, to each according to his need. For Marx the historical process of class antagonisms inevitable led to emancipation of the working class, and through their victory all class is abolished. Hense why they are considered the only class that can carry out this revolutionary task.
Historical Materialism init!
@1844Freddy I agree, the extra labour is going into producing goods and services for the super-rich - a kind of neo-feudalism, yes. I also think there is enormous waste e.g. in the effort that goes into persuading me to buy this or that product that I don't want, more effort in trying to persuade me NOT to buy that product but some other product I don't want instead. We need not work more than a few hours / day on average - but are socially conditioned to believe otherwise.
Donald Trump is the personification of the moral depravity popularized by Marcuse. { golf clap } for Golf Hat "conservatism"
@Dumbly Amazing isn't it, how your sort thinks it's perfectly alright, perfectly acceptable, to be rude and offensive, yet start squealing about being insulted and intimidated when they receive a taste of their own medicine. What TH-cam needs is more people to hound riff raff like you until you behave in a more civilised manner. Then we could all look forward to gentle, urbane, rational debate - and, as is the norm with civilised exchanges, actually learn from one another.
or just be pu to work t in ANY factory or put to digging ditches -it might give the spoiled little middle -class brats a whole more appreciative outlook on life.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👊😎🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Herbert Marcuse is paying for what he has done in the lake of fire.
durr durr
Its quite clear from you falling back on the old chestnut of "Marxism iz Fascism!!!!" that you are unable to see past your own entrenchment in ideology, thus its kind of pointless to debate you.
It has long been a banality among 'radical economists' that choice within the 'free market system' is already and always ideological; that rather than being 'value free,' choice (which is inevitably preconditioned) is an arbitrary a priori value. The 'free market' has never existed, it is a utopian construct designed to mask the 'social' forces that actually shape the economy. The theories of Friedman is as much a form of Ethics as Marx's, and are much more ridged, less adaptive than Marx.
I think its a mistake to see Marx as a Humanist, in fact I think Friedman's postion can be seen as more Humanist than Marx. Friedman bases his theories on the assumption that the human race and technological circumstances are at a constant, were as Marx and Engles were profoundly anti-Humanist in the sense that they formulated the human race and technological circumstances as a variable.
Also, Individualism =/= Individuality
there is no proper spirituality in this.