Shock Therapy: Sublimation of Dissent

Man was to be a higher being, committed to higher values; sexuality was to be dignified by love.      

Marcuse, Eros and Civilization

There’s a certain perverse respect to be afforded the culture industry; housewives browse amicably through Andy Warhol-themed pottery collections while “Woodstock’s Greatest Hits” plays softly in the background.  Indeed, the ability of capitalism to consume, repress and sublimate rebellion is awe inspiring. It transforms anti-social acts into pacified consumer fare. Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization presents exactly this point; the breadth of late capitalism’s culture industry has marginalized and all but forbidden any significant attempts for sexual revolution. Any attempt by the characters in Fast Times at Ridgemont High to act against societal constraints not only results in abject failure but also swift remonstration; the individual will is always trampled under societal desires. Demonstrated most clearly in the sexual relationships which drive the film, Fast Times’ enforced orthodoxy of sexual behavior continually sublimates both the characters and the audience’s erotic desires. Fast Times at Ridgemont High juxtaposes radical sexual behavior with established social norms and then attaches consequences which greatly influence the audience’s understanding of pursuit of individual desire.

                    Marcuse’s Eros is predicated on a neo-Freudian understanding of social forces at work upon individuals, particularly the belief that individual desires for pleasure and instant gratification fall prey to a greater social desire for sustainability. Fast Times embraces this ideal, both in a specific (within the film) and a metanarrative (the film within society) way – all impulsive acts result in destabilization of existing relationships and a painful comeuppance.  “Freedom in civilization is essentially antagonistic to happiness: it involves the repressive modification (sublimation) of happiness.” (Marcuse, 18)  Consider the way in which the film treats sexual acts, as it either ridicules or stigmatizes the ‘aberrantly’ sexual, sublimating the pleasure principle (manifested in the film as sexual desire) as early as the opening scene of the film. Shown gossiping together with her friends at work, Stacy reveals an uncanny understanding of sexual dynamics. “Just take his order, look him in the eye and if he says anything remotely funny, laugh a lot,” Linda declares, before ruffling Stacy’s hair and sending her out to seduce “her man.” The scene is somewhat jolting, particularly given the ages of the characters involved. The feeling of the uncanny is textbook Freudian repression, a “mental dynamic which Freud unfolds as the dynamic of civilization.” (Marcuse, 16) None of the girls is over seventeen, while Stacy “isn’t even in high school yet.” Still, she convincingly lies her way through the interaction with the lothario customer, eventually ending in a sexual liaison. This is (to the viewer then and now) a shocking act. In a scene rife with dissemblance and absent any warmth, Stacy readily loses her virginity to a man ten years her senior, calling into question female sexuality, pedophilia, and normal courtship rituals. The film rests on the precipice of sexual subversion, upon which it teeters before ultimately reassuring the viewer that such behavior is societally toxic. Ron sends roses, as men are wont to do, and Stacy feels anguished about such impersonal sex.  

Similarly artificial crises of “moral behavior” arise throughout the rest of the film, where any morally controversial act is swiftly followed up with negative repercussions. Rat violates social custom and leaves Stacy, half undressed, in her room – only to see his refusal of the masculine ‘role’ repaid with her infidelity. Acting contrary to what’s expected, the film warns Rat, will only get you in trouble. Amusingly, not even Damone himself can escape this fate. After succumbing to the obviously agonizing impulse to seduce Stacy, the situation climaxes in an unsatisfying and alienating sexual experience, one for which both Damone and Stacy will pay. Once again, the film chides, acting out against established codes of behavior will only do you harm. The ending of the film, clichéd as it is, drives home the final nail – Stacy and Rat have completely sublimated any sexual desire, continuing to date without “going all the way” – phrased otherwise, “the new aim is one distinct or remote from sexual satisfaction, i.e., is an asexual or non-sexual aim.” (Marcuse, 206)

Not even phantasy, the one realm that “remains free from the rule of the reality principle” (14) is safe. Both Brad and Spicoli roam into the dream world, with predictably embarrassing results. Brad’s swimsuit fantasy and masturbation are indicative of the genitally oriented nature of acceptable social desire – it’s further embarrassing that he’s caught masturbating, the antithesis of “sexuality in the service of reproduction.” (Marcuse,204)Not only is the solitary nature of the act pathetic; the horrified reactions indicates that “the use of the body as mere object, means, instrument of pleasure…remained the ill-reputed privilege of whores, degenerates, and perverts.” (Marcuse, 200-201)

The role this film (as art) plays in the larger social dialectic further reinforces societal taboos on sexuality – the titillating nature of the subject matter, in combination with a seemingly ‘avant-garde’ treatment of traditional relationships, makes the film appear to fill a much more provocative role than it does. However, the very conclusions offered by the movie – as evinced in the convenient wrap-up – remove any potential for personal deliberation on the questions posed. In this way, the culture industry creates, captures, and controls any potential for abnormal thought.  Even groups that might criticize the film for controversial material fall into this trap; the suggestion that racy film ‘corrupts’ youth places the Ursprung of radical thought not within the individual himself, but rather conveniently out of reach, in nominally ‘risqué’ art. Thus, while pretending to be a ‘radicalized’ treatment of sexuality, Fast Times is a subversively counter-revolutionary reinforcement of social mores. 

Ei sunt acei neo-hippies mereu gata sa sara in apararea balenelor, preocupati de excluziunea sociala, de minoritati (mai mult sau mai putin existente), fascinati de figura lui Che Guevarra, idolatri pana la fetisism fata de orice idee ce frizeaza "avangarda", mereu militand pentru frangerea structurilor traditionale si partizani absolutist-fanatici ai notiunii de "toleranta". Exact! Aceiasi bolsevici, cu spoiala unei culturi de fatada. Utopisti post-burghezi, inarmati cu retorica unei ideologii defuncte de drept, insa resuscitata de fapt.

Orice polemica, orice disputa cu acesti Marcuse de debara ai generatiei Converse se finalizeaza in acelasi mod in care se termina si cu strabunii lor spirituali din '17 sau din '68: prin achiesarea la pretentiile lor doctrinare sau prin zgomotoasa denuntare a adversarului ca fiind "reactionar", "imperialist", "in slujba marelui capital". Acest fapt nu face decat sa sublinieze un lucru binecunoscut de toti cei care au avut fericita (sau nefericita) idee de a se lua la tranta cu stangistii post-moderni: argumentarea punctuala nu e punctul lor forte, fie datorita incapacitatii, fie datorita lipsei de onestitate intelectuala.

In ciuda acuzei permanente de "prejudecata" pe care o aplica fara discernamant adversarilor, ei sunt singurii care pornesc in demersul discursiv cu convingerea absoluta a validitatii ideii de "egalitate", "toleranta", "lupta de clasa". Iar atunci cand infrangerea pe plan ideatic se iveste la orizonturile lor rosii, cea mai facila scapare le e mereu la indemana: marginalizarea adversarului si improscarea sa instantanee cu noroi corect politic prin lipirea de etichete fara echivoc: "fascist", "primitiv", "extremist", "radical".

Devotiunea aproape mistica pe care generatia Converse o manifesta fata de fetisul "tolerantei" este, dupa cum ne-am obisnuit, supusa dublului standard. In viziunea lor toleranta e o valoare absoluta, dar numai atunci cand se aplica lor sau categoriilor "marginal-exploatate" de blestematii de cripto-fascisto-capitalisti. La mitul tolerantei nechibzuite se adauga lupta frenetica pentru incluziune sociala (i.e. impotriva excluziunii sociale) a minoritatilor defavorizate. E destul de ironic sa observam acest fapt, avand in vedere ca ei savarsesc un act excluziune radicala (si o punere la zid) a tuturor celor care indraznesc sa puna la indoiala fundamentele acestei mistici secularizate a marxismului monden.

Oricat de pasnic si nevinovat ar parea acest socialism "idealist" al noii generatii de stangisti el detine acelasi nucleu dur, represiv si neinduplecat fata de orice si oricine ar putea sa ii stavileasca elanurile a la tsunami. Totusi, aceasta ideologie adusa up-to-date prin folosirea unei imagistici ce capteaza cu usurinta tineretul depersonalizat al contemporaneitatii noastre este iterata intr-o noua forma, o forma usoara, insesizabila ce se insinueaza tiptil oriunde se gasesc laolalta mai mult de trei capete seci cu dorite veleitati de "genialitate". Caci, sa fim seriosi, pentru hoardele de "artisti" de avangarda, pentru struto-camilele ideatice ale luptei feministo-ecologice, pentru acei pierde-vara incapabili de actiune nu exista alta cale decat visul unei lumi fara frontiere, fara ierarhie, fara religie, fara lupta ... o lume "fara".

Presupusi militanti pentru diversitate, Converse-bolsevicii nostri esueaza in a dori o lume cu adevarat diversa pentru ca actioneaza in cel mai tembel mod cu putinta. In loc sa conserve, sa pastreze si sa sustina diferentele esentiale din cadrul structurilor etnico-sociale traditionale, ei tind sa uniformizeze totul -atat la nivel profund, cat si la nivel formal-, sa aduca intreaga planeta la un numitor comun emasculant, pentru ca apoi sa decreteze o atomizare, o scindare a acestui trup global inform in infinite grupuri si grupulete coagulate in jurul unei mascarade. Acest tip indezirabil de "diversitate" poate fi observat si in cadrul cercurilor acestor noi Piotr Verhovenski (care se recomanda in "Demonii" ca fiind "nici prost, nici deştept, destul de modest înzestrat şi căzut din lună"), cercuri dominate de un mimetism ce frange povara lipsei de personalitate. Ceea ce ii face "diversi in unitate" nu e vreo trasatura fundamentala, originala si inerenta doar lor, ci -eventual- culoarea fularului purtat, tipul de sireturi folosite la Conversi sau preferinta pentru Marcuse fata de Gramsci.

Acesti tineri, niste iacobini blazati, par a afisa un laudabil (la prima vedere) demers cultural impotriva trivializarii societatii si a vulgaritatii manelistice. Din pacate, intentiile -precum si rezultatele- lor dezvaluie o totala lipsa de sens. In numele unei "avangarde" devenite deja desuete, pretind a anihila orice valoare clasica a culturii autohtone. Totul trebuie (post)modernizat, totul trebuie "deschis" si "demistificat". Este ciudat cum preponentii acestei noi "dezvrajiri", acestui nou tip de "Entzauberung" a la Weber aplicat magiei culturale nationale reusesc (parafrazandu-l pe Cioran) sa zdrobeasca vechii idoli, doar pentru a se inchina la niste papusele diforme, construite din faramele defunctilor.

Fara a fi promotorii unui demers cultural substantial, acesti eco-marxisti construiesc un curent, un trend bazat pe negatie, o negatie fara trezirea unei afirmatii ulterioare. Opozitia fata de manele, fata de manifestarile kitsch de talcioc, fata de consumerismul cultural al unei societati in declin nu reuseste sa depaseasca stadiul de sila, nu reuseste sa depaseasca o afectare snoaba, neurmata de crearea unei reactii veridice. Caci, la urma urmei, pentru a fi in contra directiei de azi in cultura romana trebuie sa pui in loc un element superior calitativ, o iritare surda nefiind suficienta.

Cateva mazgalituri postmoderne inepte, cateva note distonante si bucati de fier sudate haotic laolalta, succedate de orgasmul pseudo-cultural al unor critici la fel de incapabili in a recunoaste fundamentele esteticului, nu pot combate degenerarea culturala, ci contribuie doar la a demonstra ca si acesti culturnici aflati dincolo de capatul istoriei nu sunt cu mult mai breji decat vajnicii mancatori-de-seminte imprastiati prin piete si stadioane. Sunt tot niste manelisti, dar snobi si intrajutorati de maestra Wikipedia in a-si construi spoiala unei false eruditii.

Pe acesti pseudo-artisti, Helene Parmelin ii categorisea drept "anartistes" (=an-artisti), declamand la adresa lor: "Astazi poti face arta fara sa fii artist. Oricine poate face orice. Pretutindeni. Cu conditia sa fie prevenita presa. Se poate impacheta si expune orice. Un spatiu abstract delimitat printr-o franghie. Sau numai franghia. [...] umbrele, fire de plastic, bucati de fiare, ghilotine sau gauri de ac, butoaie cu apa ori tuburi de scurgere, tot ce poate fi mai bun ca gaselnita sau mai rau decat nimicul. Conteaza prea putin. Se va gasi intotdeauna un critic de <avangarda> care sa se tavaleasca de admiratie in fata acestora, decretand ca intregul univers se cutremura".

La fel sta problema si cu islamofilia lor. Ei, da: sunt islamofili. Liber-cugetatorii Converse sustin lumea islamica pana in panzele albe si ii acuza de "islamofobie" pe toti cei care ar vrea sa atinga cu cea mai mica floare un reprezentant al acestei societati diferite. Partea ridicola e ca tocmai acesti socialisti ai unei lumi crepusculare sunt, in realitate, cei mai "islamofobi", cei aflati la polul cel mai departat fata de o lume traditionala, de o paradigma fundamentata pe sacralitate. Islamofilii socialisti sunt un paradox incarnat: cer mereu toleranta pentru o cultura care lor nu le-ar oferi nici cea mai mica farama din aceasta. Oricat de mare ar parea harjoneala intre dreapta clasica si Islam, aceasta este doar aparenta, se oglindeste doar superficial -in interese geopolitice-, iar nu in domeniul principiilor care ar trebui sa ordoneze lumea. Cei care sunt diametral si echidistant opusi atat fata de Islam, cat si fata de dreapta traditionala sunt tocmai acesti marxisti desacraliza(n)ti, depersonaliza(n)ti si egalitaristi. Islamul are nevoie sa fie respectat si lasat in pace, nu patern si multicultural aparat de o sleahta de nevolnici.

"Sapuneala" perpetua pe care tinerii nostri Converse-marxisti doresc a o aplica mereu dreptei, pentru greselile savarsite in istorie este cu atat mai ridicola cu cat ei ascund mereu sub covor si se prefac a uita zecile milioane de crime pe care "democratia populara" si socialista le poarta in carca. Caci, dupa cum scria si Alain de Benoist in a sa "Vue de Droite", "daca energumenii diverselor varietati de socialism nu se simt angajati de nici una dintre experientele concrete care le-au precedat - si mai ales de cele mai criminale dintre ele -, nu vad de ce dreapta moderna, care respinge categoric orice tentatie totalitara, ar trebui sa-si puna cenusa in cap sau sa se justifice. Incredibilei obraznicii a partizanilor unei doctrine in numele careia au fost deja masacrati mai mult de cincizeci de milioane de oameni si care, pe deasupra, ni se prezinta cu trandafirul in mana si cu mana pe inima ca aparatori ai libertatii, dreapta ar trebui sa-i raspunda cu un ras eliberator si sa-si urmeze drumul".

Generatia '17 s-a prabusit sub presiunea propriei greutati. Generatia '68 s-a facut de ras, apoi s-a facut mare si a ajuns sa fie un fel de CEO social-capitalist al Europei. Dar cu generatia Converse ce ne facem? Mai perversi decat bunicii ei din 1917 si mai tembeli decat tatii lor din 1968, Converse-marxistii contemporani au o metodologie imbunatatita, un substrat frumos cosmetizat cu aspectul unor intentii respectabile. Oare va fi si dreapta capabila sa isi re-elaboreze strategia, sa iasa din pietrificare, sa inceapa din nou conflagratia ideologica cu upgradatul adversar? Risca oare si conservatorismul sa devina un Converseatorism ori va reusi sa se reactualizeze, sa se replieze fara a cadea in groapa cu lei a (post)modernismului?

Pe o tema similara, recomandam si: De 40 ani - 1968 si spiritul epocii

pdf

Acknowledgments

THE FIRST PART of this work is the result of my studies as a Senior Fellow at the Russian Institute, Columbia University, during the years 1952-53. The second part was prepared at the Russian Research Center, Harvard University, in 1954-55, under a special grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. I am much indebted to the Russian Research Center, and especially to its Director, William L. Langer, and Associate Director, Marshall D. Shulman, for their kindness in relinquishing to Columbia University Press their publication rights to the second part.

I also wish to express my thanks to George L. Kline, Columbia University, who prepared some of the material used in the second part of this essay; to Alfred E. Senn, for his assistance with Russian references; and to Arkadii R. L. Gurland, who offered valuable help and comments.

My friend, Barrington Moore, Jr., read the manuscript and helped me as usual with his incisive criticism.

The index was prepared by Maud Hazeltine.

HERBERT MARCUSE

Brandeis University
June, 1957

Introduction

THIS STUDY attempts to evaluate some main trends of Soviet Marxism in terms of an "immanent critique," that is to say it starts from the theoretical premises of Soviet Marxism develops their ideological and sociological consequences and reexamines the premises in the light of these consequences. The critique thus employs the conceptual instruments of its object, namely, Marxism, in order to clarify the actual function of Marxism in Soviet society and its historical direction. This approach implies a twofold assumption:

(1) That Soviet Marxism (i.e., Leninism, Stalinism, and post-Stalin trends) is not merely an ideology promulgated by the Kremlin in order to rationalize and justify its policies but expresses in various forms the realities of Soviet developments. If this is the case, then the extreme poverty and even dishonesty of Soviet theory would not vitiate the basic importance of Soviet theory but would itself provide a cue for the factors which engendered the
obvious theoretical deficiencies;

(2) That identifiable objective trends and tendencies are operative in history which make up the inherent rationality of the historical process. Since this assumption is easily misrepresented as acceptance of Hegelian metaphysics, a few words may be said in the way of defense and explanation.

Belief in objective historical "laws" is indeed at the very core of Hegel's philosophy. To him, these laws are the manifestation of Reason — a subjective and objective force, operating in the historical actions of men and in the material and intellectual culture. History is thus at one and the same time a logical and teleological process, namely, progress (in spite of relapses and regressions) in the consciousness and the realization of Freedom. The sequence in the principal stages of civilization is thereby ascent to higher forms of humanity — quantitative and qualitative growth. Marx has retained this basic notion while modifying it in a decisive sense: history progresses through the development of the productive forces, which is progress, not in the realization of Freedom, but in the creation of the prerequisites of Freedom; they remain mere prerequisites in the interest of class society. Thus, for Marx, history is certainly not the manifestation of Reason but much rather the opposite; Reason pertains only to the future of classless society as a social organization geared to the free development of human needs and faculties. What is history to Hegel is still prehistory to Marx.

The assumption of historical laws can be separated from all teleology. Then it means that the development of a specific social system, and the changes which lead from one social system to another, are determined by the structure which the respective society has given itself, that is to say,by the basic division and organization of social labor, and that the political and cultural institutions are generated by and correspond to this basic division and organization.
The manifold dimensions and aspects of societal life are not a mere sum-total of facts and forces but constitute a clearly identifiable unit so that long range developments in any one dimension must be comprehended in their relation to the "base." On the ground of such structural unity, consecutive social systems can be distinguished from one another as essentially different forms of society whose general direction of development is in a demonstrable sense "predetermined" by its origins. The very impossibility to fix an exact date (even within a century or more) when the one social system ends and the other begins (for example, feudalism and capitalism) indicates the underlying trend which transforms one system into another. The new society emerges within the framework of the old, through definable changes in its structure — changes which are cumulative until the essentially different structure is there.
In the last analysis there are no "extraneous" causes in this chain, for all apparently outside factors and events (such as discoveries, invasions, the impact of far distant forces) will affect the social structure only if the ground is prepared for them, for example, if they "meet" corresponding developments within the respective society or if they meet social wants and needs (as the barbarian influx into the weakened Roman empire, or as the influence of international trade and commerce and of the discoveries on the internally changing feudal societies from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century).

The basic form of societal reproduction, once institutionalized, determines the direction of development not only within the respective society but also beyond it. In this sense the historical process is rational and irreversible.

As an example of the development within: The present stage of Western industrial society, with its increasing private and governmental regulation of the economy (in other words, with its increasing political economy and culture) appears as the "logical," i.e., inherent, outcome of the free enterprise and free competition prevalent at the preceding stage. No Marxist categories are necessary in order to elucidate the connection between the concentration of economic power and the corresponding political and cultural changes on the one hand and the capitalistic utilization of growing productivity of labor and technical progress on the other. As an example of the development beyond: The emergence of the feudal system from the basic institutions of the agricultural economy in the late Roman empire under the impact of the barbarian tribal-military organization provides perhaps the clearest example of inherent historical rationality and irreversibility. By the same token, it seems a reasonable anticipation that, whatever the next stage of industrial civilization may be, the basic institutions of large-scale mechanized industry and the explosive growth of the productivity of labor commanded by it will
bring about political and cultural institutions irrevocably different from those of the liberalist period — a historical tendency which is likely to supersede some of the present most conspicuous differences between the Western and the Soviet system.

This brief outline of the notion of objective historical laws may serve to show the ateleological character of the hypothesis. It implies no purpose, no "end" toward which history is moving, no metaphysical or spiritual Reason underlying the process — only its institutional determination. Moreover, it is a historical determination, that is to say, it is not in any sense "automatic." Within the institutional framework which men have given themselves in interaction with the prevailing natural and historical conditions, the development proceeds through the action of men — they are the historical agents, and theirs are the alternatives and decisions.

In applying the hypothesis to the interpretation of Soviet Marxism, one qualification imposes itself from the beginning. It seems that the determining trend cannot be defined merely in terms of the structure of Soviet society, but that it must be defined in terms of the interaction between Soviet and Western society. Even the most cursory survey of Soviet Marxism is confronted with the fact that at almost every turn in the development Soviet theory (and Soviet policy) reacts to a corresponding Western development and vice versa. This seems self-evident and hardly worth mentioning were it not for the fact that it is usually taken too lightly, taken into account merely with respect to diplomacy and propaganda, or understood as arrangements of expediency, short-term adjustments, and so on.
However, the interaction seems to go much further and to express an essential link between the two conflicting systems, thus affecting the very structure of Soviet society.

In its most visible form, the link is in the technical-economic basis common to both systems, i.e., mechanized (and increasingly mechanized) industry as the mainspring of societal organization in all spheres of life. As against this common technical-economic denominator stands the very different institutional structure — private enterprise here, nationalized enterprise there. Will the common technical-economic basis eventually assert itself over and against the different social institutions, or will the latter continue to widen the difference in the utilization of the productive forces in the two social systems? (According to Marxian theory, the technical-economic basis is in itself "neutral" and susceptible to capitalist as well as socialist utilization, the decision depending on the outcome of the class struggle — a notion which well illustrates the limits of Marxian "determinism.") The question plays a decisive role in evaluating the international dynamic and the prospects of a global "state-capitalism" or socialism; its discussion lies outside the scope of this study, which, however, may provide some preparatory material.

The interaction between Western and Soviet developments, far from being an external factor, pertains to the determining historical trend — to the historical "law" governing Soviet Marxism as well as to the reality reflected in Soviet Marxism. From the beginning, the specific international dynamic released by the transformation of "classical" into organized capitalism (in Marxist terms, monopoly capitalism) defines Soviet Marxism — in Lenin's doctrine of the avant garde, in the notion of "socialism in one country," in the triumph of Stalinism over Trotskyism and over the old Bolsheviks, in the sustained priority of heavy industry, in the continuation of a repressive totalitarian centralization. They are in a strict sense responses to the (in Marxian terms, "anomalous") growth and readjustment of Western industrial society and to the decline in the revolutionary potential of the Western world resulting from this readjustment. The degree to which these developments
have shaped Soviet Marxism may be illustrated by the function of the term "coexistence." The notion of coexistence has received very different emphases with Soviet Marxism — from a short-term tactical need to a long-range political objective. However, the very distinction between
"short term" and "long range" is meaningless without identifiable standards of measurement, which in turn presuppose a demonstrable theoretical evaluation of the historical direction of Soviet developments. In Soviet Marxist language everytliing is short term if compared with the final event of world communism. Outside the realm of this language it is nonsensical to call "short term" policies which may last decades and which are imposed not by the political fluctuations but by the structure of the international situation. Viewed in this context, coexistence is perhaps the most singular feature of the contemporary era, namely, the meeting of two antagonistic forms of industrial civilization, challenging each other in the same international arena, neither one strong enough to replace the other.

This relative weakness of both systems is characteristic of their respective structures and therefore a long-range factor; the end of one system's effectiveness would be tantamount to the end of the system. In Western industrial society, the weakness derives from the constant danger of overproduction in a narrowing world market and grave social and economic dislocations, a danger necessitating constant political countermeasures, which in turn limit the economic and cultural growth of the system. On the other side, the Soviet system still suffers from the plague of underproduction, perpetuated by its military and political commitments against the advanced Western world. The implications of this dynamic will be traced in the following chapters.

The development from Leninism to Stalinism and beyond will be discussed as the result, in its main stages and features, of the "anomalous" constellation in which a socialist [1] society was to be built coexistent rather than subsequent to capitalist society, as the competitor rather than the heir of the latter. This does not mean that the policies (such as the Stalinist industrialization) which decided the fundamental trend of Soviet society were an inexorable necessity. There were alternatives, but they were in an emphatic sense historical alternatives — "choices" presented to the classes which fought the great social struggles of the interwar period rather than choices at the discretion of the Soviet leadership. The outcome was decided in this struggle; it was decided in Europe by about 1923; and the Soviet leadership did not make this decision though it contributed to it (at that time probably to a lesser degree than is usually assumed).

If these propositions can be corroborated, the question as to whether or not the Soviet leadership is guided by Marxist principles is without relevance; once Incorporated into the foundational institutions and objectives of the new society, Marxism becomes subject to a historical dynamic which surpasses the intentions of the leadership and to which the manipulators themselves succumb. An immanent discussion of Soviet Marxism may help to identify this historical dynamic to which the leadership itself is subjected — no matter how autonomous and totalitarian it may be.
Thus, in examining Soviet Marxism and the (theoretical) situation from which it originated, we are not concerned with abstract-dogmatic validity but with concrete political and economic trends, which may also provide a key for
anticipating prospective developments.

A few words must be said in justification of such an approach. Marxian theory purports to be an essentially new philosophy, substantially different from the main tradition of Western philosophy. Marxism claims to fulfill this tradition by passing from ideology to reality, from philosophical interpretation to political action. For this purpose, Marxism redefines not only the main categories and modes of thought, but also the dimension of their verification; their validity is to be determined by the historical situation and the action of the proletariat. There is theoretical continuity from the early Marxian notion of the Proletariat as the objectified truth of capitalist society to the Soviet Marxist concept partinost (partisanship).

Under these circumstances, a critique which merely applies the traditional criteria of philosophical truth to Soviet Marxism does not, in a strict sense, reach its objective.

Such a critique, no matter how strong and well founded it may be, is easily blunted by the argument that its conceptual foundations have been undermined by the Marxist transition into a different area of historical and theoretical verification. The Marxist dimension itself thus seems to remain intact because it remains outside the argument. But if the critique enters that very dimension, by examining the development and use of the Marxist categories in terms of their own claim and content, it may be able to penetrate the real content beneath the ideological and political form in which it appears.

A critique of Soviet Marxism "from without" must either discard its theoretical efforts as "propaganda" or take them at their face value, namely, as philosophy or sociology in the traditional sense of these disciplines. The first alternative seems to beg the question as to what is meant seriously in Soviet Marxism and on what grounds the distinction is made.[2] The second alternative would engage in philosophical and sociological controversies outside the context in which the Soviet Marxist theories are presented and which is essential to their meaning. Treated in this manner, as items in the history of philosophical or sociological thought, the articles of the Concise Philosophical Dictionary, for example, or the logic discussion of 1950-51, are totally irrelevant — their philosophical faults are obvious to any scholar; their function is not the academic formulation of generally valid categories and techniques of thought but the definition of their relation to the political reality.[3] In contrast, an immanent critique, far from taking these theories at their surface value, could reveal the political intention which is their real content.
The approach suggested here shifts the emphasis of the critique from the spectacular public controversies, such as the Aleksandrov debate or the logic and linguistic discussion, to basic trends in Soviet Marxism and uses the former only by way of illustration of the latter.

The immanent critique proceeds under the assumption that Marxian theory plays a decisive part in the formulation and execution of Soviet policy, and that from the Soviet use of Marxian theory inferences may be drawn for
the national and international development of the Soviet state. The fact is that the Bolshevik Party and the Bolshevik Revolution were, to a considerable degree, developed according to Marxist principles, and that the Stalinist reconstruction of Soviet society based itself on Leninism, which was a specific interpretation of Marxian theory and practice. The ideology thus becomes a decisive part of reality even if it was used only as an instrument of domination and propaganda. For this reason, a recurrent comparison between Soviet Marxism and pre-Soviet Marxian theory will be necessary. The problem of Soviet "revisions" of Marxian theory will not be treated as a problem of Marxian dogmatics; the relation between the different forms and
stages of Marxism will rather be used as an indication of the way in which the Soviet leadership interprets and evaluates the changing historical situation as the framework for its policy decisions.

Soviet Marxism has assumed the character of a "behavioral science." Most of its theoretical pronouncements have a pragmatic, instrumentalist intent; they serve to explain, justify, promote, and direct certain actions and attitudes which are actual "data" for these pronouncements.
These actions and attitudes (for example, accelerated collectivization of agriculture; Stakhanovism ; integral anti-Western ideology; insistence on the objective determinism of basic economic laws under socialism) are rationalized and justified in terms of the inherited body of "Marxism-Leninism" which the Soviet leadership applies to the changing historical situation. But it is precisely the pragmatic, behaviorist character of Soviet Marxism which makes it an indispensable tool for the understanding of
Soviet developments. The theoretical pronouncements of Soviet Marxism, in their pragmatic function, define the trend of Soviet developments.

Distinction must therefore be made between overt formulation and actual meaning of Soviet Marxist statements.
This distinction is not conveyed by the convenient term "Aesopian language," which conceals rather than points up the real distinction. To be sure, in Soviet usage the meaning of "democracy," "peace," "freedom," etc., is very different from that understood in the Western world — but so is the meaning of "revolution" and "dictatorship of the proletariat." The Soviet usage also redefines the meaning of the specifically Marxian concepts. The latter themselves are transformed in so far as Soviet Marxism claims to be
Marxism in and for a new historical situation; they form the Marxist answer to the fundamental economic and political changes during the first half of the century.

From this point of view, Soviet Marxism appears as the attempt to reconcile the inherited body of Marxian theory with a historical situation which seemed to vitiate the central conception of this theory itself, namely, the Marxian conception of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
Preparatory to the discussion of Soviet Marxism, we must, therefore, circumscribe the historical as well as the theoretical situation from which Soviet Marxism derived. We must try to identify the point at which the historical development seemed to explode the Marxian analysis. This is the crucial point for the understanding of Soviet Marxism.

Part I of this study aims at analyzing the basic conceptions by virtue of which Soviet Marxism appears as a unified theory of contemporary history and society. We take these concepts in their dogmatic statement only in order to develop them in the context of the social and political processes which they interpret and which alone makes them meaningful. Emphasis is throughout on the tendencies which Soviet Marxism seems to reflect and anticipate.
Whereas Part I is thus focused on the objective factors underlying Soviet Marxism, Part II deals with the subjective factor, that is, with the "human material" which is supposed to follow the lead and to attain the goals set by
Soviet Marxism. The material for this part is taken from Soviet ethical philosophy.

Notes

[1] Use of the term "socialist" for Soviet society in this study nowhere im
plies that this society is socialist in the sense envisaged by Marx and Engels.
However, it is assumed that the initial intention and objective of the Bolshevik Revolution was to build a socialist society.
[2] See pp. 39 f . below.
[3] See Chapter 5.

Aos 12 anos foi enviado a um colégio progressista, onde se aproximou de um dos seus diretores, o educador Gustav Wyneken. Durante anos Benjamin militou no movimento estudantil antiautoritário (Movimento Livre da Juventude Alemã) liderado por Wyneken. Em 1912, matriculou-se na Universidade de Friburgo e lançou-se no ativismo pela reforma educacional. Benjamin abandona o grupo em novembro de 1914, quando Wyneken promove um discurso em apoio à Primeira Guerra Mundial.

Com o eclodir da guerra, o pacifista Benjamin simula problemas de saúde e muda-se para a neutra Suíça. Em 1915 entra em contato com Gerschom Gerhard Scholem e se torna muito próximo deste através gosto de ambos pela arte e interesse de sobre a cultura religiosa judaica. Permaneceu no país até 1920, após publicar o doutorado defendido no ano anterior na Universidade de Berna: O conceito de crítica de arte no romantismo alemão [Der Begriff der Kunstkritik in der deutschen Romantik].

No início dos anos 1920, aproximou-se de filósofos como Adorno, Horkheimer e Marcuse, na época jovens professores envoltos na crítica da cultura e da razão capitalistas, com quem manteve diálogo ao longo de toda a vida. Em 1925, defende submete ao Departamento de Estética da Universidade de Frankfurt sua dissertação Origem do drama barroco alemão [Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels] a fim de obter a Habilitation (livre-docência). O trabalho não foi aceito por encontrar-se entre as cadeiras de literatura e filosofia e Benjamin não encontrou um orientador preparado para o caso. Embora rejeitada, a tese veio a público no ano de 1928.

Fracassados seus planos acadêmicos, lançou-se à carreira de tradutor, radialista e jornalista free-lance. Em 1924, no principal reduto de férias dos intelectuais alemães em Capri, Benjamin conheceu Asja Lacis, diretora de teatro da Letônia e comunista engajada. A influência de Lacis implicou em uma mudança política radical no pensamento de Benjamin, que a partir de então se interessa pelo marxismo, e juntamente com seu colega Theodor Adorno, entra em contato com a filosofia de Georg Lukács. Em 1926, Benjamin viajou a Moscou, começou a submeter-se à linha de pensamento do Partido Comunista e participar das reuniões da Liga dos Escritores Revolucionários-Proletários. Durante anos Benjamin reproduziu o pensamento marxista, mesmo sem ter tido contato direto com Marx. “Burguesa” tornou-se sua forma de repreender uma mentalidade que ele julgava ser puramente hostil. Declarar-se comunista significou colocar-se moral e historicamente contra a burguesia e, de certa forma, contra sua própria origem burguesa.

Em 1928, Benjamin publica Rua de mão única, uma coleção de anotações em diário, sonhos, mini-ensaios e ríspidas observações sobre a Alemanha de Weimar, dedicado a Asja Lacis. No ano seguinte, através da mesma, Benjamin conhece Bertold Brecht, poeta que viria a se tornar uma dos maiores teatrólogos do século XX. Em O autor como produtor, texto de 1934, nota-se a influência de Brecht em Benjamin. Sobre o questionamento clássico da estética marxista relacionando a importância entre a forma e o conteúdo, Benjamin defende a esquerda da vanguarda modernista (surrealistas), contra a linha do Partido com relação à literatura, com histórias realistas e facilmente compreensíveis e acentuada tendência progressista. Para Benjamin, o escritor seria como o engenheiro (metáfora apreciada por Stálin), um especialista técnico e que deveria ter voz em questões técnicas.

Quando os nazistas chegaram ao poder, muitos companheiros de Benjamin, inclusive Brecht, perceberam o inevitável e fugiram. Benjamin logo os acompanhou, estabelecendo-se em Paris. Com o eclodir da guerra, se viu capturado como estrangeiro inimigo. Posteriormente solto graças ao PEN francês, preparou-se para fugir aos Estados Unidos a partir da Espanha, onde pereceu na fronteira.

Bibliografia

J.M.Coetzee. As maravilhas de Walter Benjamin. Tradução: José Rubens Siqueira. In: Novos Estudos, nº 70, Nov/2004. p. 99-113.

Renato Kirchner. Trabalho das passagens de Walter Benjamin. In: Viso · Cadernos de estética aplicada, n° 3, set-dez/2007. < http://www.revistaviso.com.br>. Acesso em 27 set. 08.

Here’s a short list of books that were written long before Sarah Palin entered our collective consciousness (the oldest is from 1933, the newest is from 1974), that help explain the social forces at work in the 2008 election:

Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. 

Why do Americans hate smart people?  Why does Barack Obama need to downplay his Ivy League education, his Harvard Law degree and his presidency of the Harvard Law Review, while Sarah Palin's ignorance about foreign policy, science, American history, and just about everything else is actually a positive on the campaign trail?  What are the roots of the Sarah Palin frontier myth, in which knowing how to hunt a moose is a more important leadership qualification than knowing how to read the Constitution? 

Published in 1963 and inspired by the McCarthyism of the 1950s, this book traces the historical basis of the McCain-Palin attack on Obama as an intellectual and elitist, and the roots of that attack in Puritanism and evangelical Protestantism.  Hofstadter analyzes the 1952 presidential election in which Democrat Adlai Stevenson was positioned by the Republicans and the media as an elitist intellectual against the plain-speaking soldier Dwight Eisenhower -- which calls to mind Marx’s famous quip that while history may repeat itself it does so "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."  A book that reactionaries still love to hate. 

Also extremely helpful in understanding the 2008 election are Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965) and Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944).

Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century. 

Why are Americans so stupid?  What is the correlation between crappy jobs and crappy people?  Why is the South so Red?  Why is Obama having such a hard time with blue collar voters in the Rust Belt and Appalachia?  Why is it that we can be pretty sure that nearly all of the redneck imbeciles who thought it would be a great idea to ride out Hurricane Ike in their mobile homes are voting Republican?

Braverman’s 1974 book establishes a correlation between the drastically reduced skill level, knowledge, and creative intelligence required for workers in the modern economy and the resulting drastic reduction in the workers’ ability to think for themselves.  He wrote about the rise of the factory system and the assembly line, but the degradation of work he describes has even more chilling consequences for our McJob “service economy.” 

Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism. 

Why do Americans worship the very powers that cut their wages, keep them without health care, ship their jobs overseas, foreclose on their houses, and send them to die in unnecessary wars?  What is the social-psychological basis of the sadomasochism inherent in the McCain POW mythology?  Why do Republicans and Country-Western singers act like fiercely independent tough guys while they slavishly prostrate themselves before authority figures and nationalistic symbols like the flag?  Why do white Americans love to hate black people, gay people, Jews, and Mexicans while they irrationally identify with and suck up to the powerful white people who are stepping on their necks? 

Writing during the early years of the rise of Hitler, the Nazis and the fascist mass movements in Europe, Reich puts the blame on sexual repression, pervasive sexual abuse, the patriarchal-authoritarian family, patriarchal-authoritarian religion, and a totalitarian education system.  There's lots of crazy stuff here, but also brilliant insights into the authoritarian psychology that pervades the Republican Party and much of the media, and that keeps Karl Rove in business.

Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance. 

Why do crack-smoking, tattooed, heavy-metal listening, bail-skipping Wal-Mart shoppers overwhelmingly support McCain-Palin?  (The latest Rasmussen Report: "McCain leads 58% to 38% among those who regularly shop at Wal-Mart while Obama leads 61% to 36% among those who don’t frequent the retail giant.") How did a society where almost everything is allowed (and shown on TV) produce the militaristic, sexually repressed, resentment fueled deformities on display at the Republican convention?  How does the "objectivity" of the mainstream media regarding political and moral choices (even when real) favor the repressive, bellicose Right? 

Written in 1965 with a post-script written in 1968, Marcuse’s theory of “repressive tolerance” incited the ire of some 60s radicals for critiquing as fundamentally repressive and authoritarian the then-nascent drug culture and sexual revolution of what would later be called the Woodstock generation. Marcuse writes: “The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandizing, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives.” 

Or, as I’ve told a right-wing biker friend of mine: “The 60s died when assholes like you started smoking pot.” 

Marcuse’s essay helps explain why.

What books would you suggest?

É nisto que o Bloco de Esquerda quer transformar a política portuguesa.

1968, primăvara. Motiv de fericită amintire pentru întreaga stângă europeană, occidentală, globală. Perioada cuprinsă între martie 1968 şi iunie 1968 s-a dovedit a fi, ulterior, momentul în care mentalitatea occidentală conservatoare a sucombat definitiv, din punct de vedere al aderenţei la mase, în faţa ideologiei socialiste şi a idealurilor „eliberării” propuse de aceasta. Cine nu îşi aminteşte milioanele de francezi mărşăluind, animaţi de acelaşi spirit revoluţionar-fanatic precum cel al iacobinilor, împotriva regimului generalului de Gaulle? Cine îi poate uita pe studenţii fantaşti ce declamau frenetic „Il est interdit d’interdire” (“Este interzis a se intezice”)?

Cu siguranţă nimeni nu poate uita acest vânt iconoclast, vânt ce a măturat orice valoare stabilă, orice mândru ideal constituent al “vechii” Europe. Fiecare soclu axiologic tradiţional a fost metodic dărâmat, virulent ras de pe faţa pământului şi înlocuit cu noi mituri. În numele acestui nou iacobinism, stânga franceză a zdrobit sub bocancul său ideatic orice idee sau individ care a încercat să i se opună. De acum, calea unei iluzorii egalităţi egalizant-egalizatoare, a unei libertăţi radicalizate până la libertinism a fost irecuperabil deschisă, în detrimentul oricărei frâne impuse de bunul-simţ. Uşa fostelor interdicţii naturale a fost deschisă, izbită de perete şi scoasă din ţâţâni …

În timp ce orice european îşi poate aminti această tristă victorie a stângii globale, oare câţi dintre noi ştiu că exact acum patruzeci ani, pe 20 aprilie 1968, un parlamentar britanic, Enoch Powell, s-a dovedit a fi omul ce se ia la trântă cu epoca sa? Câţi dintre noi îşi aduc aminte de acest conservator care nu doar că a îndrăznit să respingă şi să combată demenţa virulentă a stângismului biruitor, ci şi să atragă de partea sa la fel de mulţi susţinători precum studenţii parizieni?

Pe 20 aprilie 1968, în aceeaşi primăvară a “eliberării”, Enoch Powell a ieşit la tribună în Birmingham, ţinând acel discurs ce ulterior avea să fie denumit “Rivers of Blood” (“Râuri de sânge”), prin parafrază la unul din cânturile Eneidei lui Vergilius. Alocuţiunea sa, axată îndeosebi pe tema imigraţiei din colonii către Marea Britanie, a fost rapid catalogată drept rasistă, retrogradă şi indezirabilă. În mod firesc pentru această epocă, Enoch Powell şi-a pierdut funcţia din Shadow Cabinet, nereuşind să mai obţină până la sfârşitul vieţii sale vreo poziţie politică semnificativă. Motivul?

Încăpăţânarea lui de a-şi păstra convingerile naţional-conservatoare, fără nici un compromis, fără nici un pas în spate, chiar dacă acest fapt ar fi dus la linşarea sa politico-mediatică. Enoch Powell, unul dintre ultimii conservatori europeni cu adevărat de dreapta, necorupt de dogma pervertitoare a neoconservatorilor americani, a „îndraznit” să pună la îndoială legitimitatea programului imigraţionist al Partidului Laburist. „Vina” sa a fost aceea de a lua în piept doctrina socialistă a acestui partid, materializată în aşa-numitul „Race Relations Act”, „greşeala” lui a fost de a considera acest proiect de lege drept ofensiv şi imoral.

Exact acum patruzeci ani, Enoch Powell, aproape profetic a îndraznit să spună că „Privind spre viitor, văd doar semne rele. Precum Romanul [Vergilius], mi se pare că văd << Tibrul spumegând a sânge >>. Tragicul şi ireversibilul fenomen pe care îl urmărim cu multă oroare de cealaltă parte a Atlanticului, dar care acolo este de nedespărţit faţă de istoria Statelor înseşi, se răsfrânge şi aici, asupra noastră, însă este datorat doar voinţei şi neglijenţei noastre”.

Revoltat de politica nechibzuită a Partidului Laburist de a primi şi chiar a cere imigranţilor din colonii să pătrundă în Marea Britanie, conservatorul Enoch Powell şi-a îndemnat susţinătorii şi colegii din Parlament să respingă aceste tendinţe maladive până nu e prea târziu. Îngrijorat de paradoxul discriminării majoritaţii în favoarea unei minorităţi, Powell notează „Este ca şi cum ai privi o întragă naţiune lucrând de zor la înălţarea propriului rug funerar”.

Până la sfârşitul lunii aprilie, Enoch Powell a primit în jur de 120 000 de scrisori privitoare la discursul său, majoritatea declarându-şi solidaritatea faţă de cele enunţate. Chiar dacă această alocuţiune a însemnat, teoretic, sfârşitul carierei sale în viaţa înaltei politici, Powell a devenit un simbol britanic şi european în ceea ce priveşte lupta piezişă cu socialismul global şi politicile de imigraţionism frenetic si fara discernamant, declansate de stangismul atotprezent. Powell a însemnat pentru mulţi naţionalişti britanici un reper al discursului intelectual bine cumpănit şi bine articulat, un model conservator al ideii naţionale în faţa pericolului reprezentat de dizolvarea identităţii în cadrul unui iluzoriu multiculturalism.

În deceniile următoare, majoritatea britanicilor, indiferent de poziţionarea lor în spectrul politic, s-au văzut obligaţi să recunoască adevărul celor susţinute de Enoch Powell în aprilie 1968. Indubitabil, Marea Britanie, a devenit până în mileniul III un leagăn al imigraţionismului ridicat la rangul de politică de stat, o naţiune care se prăbuşeşte sub loviturile de bici născute din socialismul auto-flagelant al anilor `68.

Întrebarea ce se naşte în prezent, pentru Europa, dar şi pentru întreaga lume este: care moment e cel demn de reţinut din acea epocă a maladiei progresiste? Cel al făţărniciei radicalismului revoluţionar al stângii franceze ori cel al conservatorismului în confruntare cu spiritului epocii, demonstrat de dreapta britanică? Marcuse ori Powell? Decizia e la îndemâna fiecărui individ. Nimeni nu are dreptul să hotărască pentru celălalt, însă precum spunea si Powell, acum patru decenii, „Nu ştiu dacă va exista voinţa publică de a cere şi obţine aceste acţiuni [de repatriere a imigranţilor], nu ştiu. Tot ceea ce ştiu e că a vedea aceste probleme şi a nu spune nimic despre ele ar fi o mare trădare”. Nu opoziţia, ci tăcerea e cea mai gravă …

Articol scris si publicat initial de sus-semnatul pentru NovoPress Romania.

Wo immer eine Moschee gegen den Willen der ansässigen Bevölkerung gebaut werden soll, wird von Politik, Medien und Klerus unisono "Toleranz angemahnt". Auffallend ist dabei die niedrige Toleranzschwelle der Toleranzapostel gegenüber Kritikern, von denen sie völlig selbstverständlich die stoische Hinnahme einer als falsch erkannten Weichenstellung fordern. Wer sich gegen die fortschreitende Islamisierung seiner sozialen Umwelt wehrt, wird von dieser ehrenwerten Gesellschaft rabiat der "Intoleranz" geziehen - und trifft unweigerlich auf die gnadenlose Intoleranz der Toleranzapostel.

Das wirft die Frage auf: Was ist eigentlich Toleranz? Und, verstehen die heutigen Toleranzapostel darunter vielleicht etwas völlig anderes als Otto Normalbürger?

*

Die naturwissenschaftliche Definition von Toleranz

Ein guter Ausgangspunkt zur Klärung der Frage, was mit Toleranz "eigentlich" gemeint ist, ist die naturwissenschaftlich-technische Definition des Begriffs, wonach unter Toleranz

die zulässige Abweichung von vorgegebenen Sollwerten, welche die Funktion des Gesamtsystems noch nicht stört

verstanden wird. Beispiele sind etwa das zulässige Gesamtgewicht eines Autos, das nur in bestimmten Grenzen überschritten werden darf, ohne daß das Vehikel zusammenbricht. Oder die Alkoholtoleranz eines Menschen, die Trockenheitstoleranz von Pflanzen usw. Immer geht es um den Funktionserhalt eines Systems - was sich auch auf die Gesellschaft anwenden läßt. Dann stellt sich etwa die Frage: Wieviel Fremdheit, wieviel Abweichung von den Normen ihrer Leitkultur (Sollwerte) verträgt beispielsweise unsere "offene" Gesellschaft, ohne zu kollabieren?

"In jedem Lexikon bezeichnet Toleranz die Grenzen, innerhalb derer fremde, irrige, anstößige oder gefährliche Elemente in etwas aufgenommen werden können, ohne dieses zu zerstören - ob es sich bei der in Fragen stehenden Entität nun um Wahrheit, strukurelle Stimmigkeit, Gesundheit, G e m e i n s c h a f t  oder das Überleben eines Organismus handelt. ... Die Grenzen der Toleranz werden sodann danach beurteilt, wieviel von diesem Schaden oder dieser Fremdheit aufgenommen werden kann, ohne das Objekt, den Wert, die Behauptung oder den Körper zu zerstören."[1]

*

Der subversive Toleranzbegriff Herbert Marcuses

Wer sich heute über die Intoleranz der Toleranzapostel wundert, ist sich nicht über die Umdeutung des klassischen Toleranzbegriffs im Zuge der 68er-Kulturrevolution im Klaren, deren Kinder jene Narren sind. Es war Herbert Marcuse, der Dalai Lama der Studentenrevolte, der in seinem einflussreichen Essay "Repressive Toleranz" (dt. 1966) zeigte, wie sich die bürgerlich-liberale Tugend der "Duldsamkeit" in eine Waffe der Revolution umschmieden läßt. Ziel sei es, die "Tyrannei der Mehrheit" zu brechen - das demokratische Mehrheitsprinzip -, wozu "Intoleranz gegenüber den herrschenden politischen Praktiken, Gesinnungen und Meinungen" als Voraussetzung wahrer, links-subversiver Toleranz notwendig sei. Diese wiederum beinhalte die Ausdehnung der Toleranz auf politische Praktiken, Gesinnungen und Meinungen, die von der Mehrheit abgelehnt werden. Damit waren randständige Minderheiten wie Straffällige, Studenten und Zuwanderer als "neues revolutionäres Subjekt" gemeint (Marcuses berühmte "Randgruppentheorie"), welche dem bestehenden System anders als die durch Wohlstand korrumpierte Arbeiterschaft potentiell feindlich gegenüberstehen.

Flankiert werden müsse diese subversive "Toleranz" durch "Intoleranz gegenüber Bewegungen von rechts ... und Duldung von Bewegungen von links". Insbesondere sei "Intoleranz vor allem gegenüber den Konservativen und der politischen Rechten" zu üben - und zwar ausdrücklich "auch gegenüber dem Denken, der Meinung und dem Wort".

Das kommt uns irgendwie bekannt vor. Es ist die Blaupause unserer heutigen gesellschaftlichen Realität, die im Westen der Republik durch den geringsten Grad an geistiger Freiheit seit 1945 gekennzeichnet ist.

*

Daß es sich bei der heute propagierten "Toleranz" gar nicht um Toleranz handelt, sondern gewissermaßen um ein Zersetzungsenzym, zeigt der Abgleich mit der technischen Toleranzdefinition.  Statt einer "zulässigen Abweichung von vorgegebenen Sollwerten, welche die Funktion des Gesamtsystems noch nicht stört", sollen Abweichungen installiert werden, welche das Gesellschaftssystem nicht nur stören, sondern womöglich zerstören. Das war der geniale Einfall Herbert Marcuses, dessen Schüler heute an den Schalthebeln sitzen. Das erklärt ihre Intoleranz. Vor allem macht es uns deutlich, daß das ständig heruntergeleierte Toleranz-Mantra etwas ganz anderes meint als die bürgerlich-liberale Tugend der Duldsamkeit. Zu deren wichtigsten Charakteristika - über welche sich alle seriösen Toleranzforscher einig sind - gehören

• Ablehnungskomponente
• Akzeptanzkomponente
• Grenzen
• Freiwilligkeit
• Wechselseitigkeit

Mit anderen Worten: Toleranz erfordert, daß ich etwas (er)dulde, was ich (u.U. zutiefst) ablehne. Ich  akzeptiere positive Gründe hierfür, z.B. die Wahrung des gesellschaftlichen Friedens. Das funktioniert aber nur, wenn ich aus freien Stücken zu dieser Duldung bereit bin (erzwungene Toleranz ist keine) und wenn gewisse Grenzen der Toleranz gewahrt werden ("keine Toleranz gegenüber Intoleranten", Karl Popper). Vorbedingung für alles ist schließlich, daß die beteiligten Parteien wechselseitig Toleranz üben.

Der Blick auf die gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit unserer Tage zeigt, daß die Rede von Toleranz eine Einbahnstraße ist, die der Durchsetzung des linken Projekts einer radikalen Gesellschaftsveränderung dienen soll. Kein einziges der fünf genannten Charakteristika ist erfüllt. Es handelt sich also gar nicht um Toleranz, sondern um die Erzwingung der Hinnahme illegitimer Herrschaft einer kulturhegemonial auftretenden Minderheit. Worüber zu reden wäre, wäre dagegen ein neuer, "konstruktiver" statt subversiver Toleranzbegriff.

s.a. Was heißt "toleranter Islam, dem Toleranz gebührt"?

"Sul problema dei volontari c'è da dire questo: fino a che punto l'intellettuale occidentale può contribuire alla lotta nelle condizioni della guerriglia? Io ho sentito parlare di casi in cui i volontari si sono rivelati più di peso che di aiuto. Il giudizio cambia, naturalmente, se si tratta di medici, di infermieri, di tecnici" (Herbert Marcuse, La fine dell'utopia, Laterza, 1968, p. 173).

E' la risposta di Marcuse allo studente berlinese Rudi Dutschke che, durante il dibattito, aveva letto un brano dove Che Guevara si lamentava dei molti intellettuali che sanno solo parlare:

"La solidarietà delle forze progressiste con il popolo vietnamita ricorda l'amara ironia dell'applauso della plebe per i gladiatori nei circhi romani. Non si tratta di auspicare il successo delle vittime dell'aggressione, ma di condividere la loro sorte, di accompagnarle fino alla morte o alla vittoria" (ibid., p. 168).

Free institutions (the media) compete with authoritarian ones in making the Enemy a deadly force within the system. And this deadly force stimulates growth and initiative, not by virtue of the magnitude and economic impact of the Defense "sector", but by virtue of the fact that the society as a whole becomes a Defense society. For the Enemy is permanent. He is not in the emergency situation but in the normal state of affairs. He threatens in peace as much as in war (and perhaps more than in war); he is thus being built into the system as a cohesive power.

I think this is as relevant an analysis today of the "Global War On Terror" (GWOT)  as it was in 1964 of the Global War on Communism. It is not easy sustaining the emotional hysteria needed to justify a permanent war economy. One need only look at the total U.S. Defense budget for the year 1950 of $13 Billion to understand that it had been our practice as a nation to have high defense budgets only in times of war. But both the Cold War and the GWOT were presented as open ended wars without end. To justify our current base Defense budget of $700 billion, we not only need to inflate the potential of Al Qaeda, Iran and North Korea, we also need to create the possibility that the Chinese Army might one day become our mortal enemy in a Third World War.

Let us try to assume that the Chinese leaders are rational people. Their largest trade market is the United States. As you can see from the chart on the left their central bank current holds about 25% of all outstanding U.S. government debt. In what kind of insane strategy would the Chinese launch a war on the country with which they are so economically intertwined? But in the mind of the neoconservatives like John Bolton, we should continue to provoke China. After the March Presidential election in Taiwan, Bolton suggested that we should immediately recognize Taiwan, a step that 7 U.S. Presidents have refused to take.

China will not like this turn of events, but inevitably it will have little choice but to accept dual recognition. Now more than ever, the US -- and Europe and Japan -- must be assertive in supporting a strengthening democracy in Taiwan.

Of course Bolton's suggestion is the classic neoconservative "self-fulfilling prophecy" , destined if it was U.S. policy to provoke China.

For a productive society, the costs of maintaining a permanent war economy are prohibitive. Like a slow growing cancer the basic principles of the military economy are spreading into our other industrial enterprises. As the great industrial economist Seymour Melman pointed out,

From the economic standpoint the main characteristic of war economy is that its products do not yield ordinary economic use-value: usefulness for the level of living (consumer goods and services); or usefulness for further production (as in machinery or tools being used to make other articles).

More importantly the whole economic basis of the military contracting system is based around maximization of costs and of government subsidies. Lockheed Martin and Halliburton have only prospered by going way over budget while being monopoly contractor on any given project. When the Air Force published its manual for Cost Estimating Procedures it made clear that "estimating methods are based on projections from historical data" and that estimators were prohibited from using the classical industrial engineering approach of productivity improvement cost estimating. In other words, if the last model of tank cost X, then it is assumed that the next model will cost X + 15%. The New Joint Strike Fighter is a classic example.

The cost of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter, already the most expensive weapons program ever, is projected to increase as much as $38 billion, congressional auditors said yesterday. That would bring the price of 2,458 F-35s to $337 billion, 45 percent more than estimated when the program began in October 2001.

And in the rare case where there is a competitive bidding situation, firms with inside clout on Capitol Hill or in the Pentagon, can often get the low bid thrown out. A classic example is Boeing's efforts to win the next generation midair refueling tanker contract worth $35 billion. Boeing had originally won the bid by bribing the Air Force procurement officer in charge of the contract. When this action resulted in conviction of the official on corruption charges, the Air Force awarded the contract to the European Airbus consortium that had already built tankers for Australia and Saudi Arabia. But Boeing was not finished yet trying to rig the game and managed to put enough pressure in Congress to force the Pentagon to reopen the contract.

The decision has widened the gulf between the European and American rivals. In Europe, officials say privately that reopening the tanker deal was a politically motivated decision in an election year.

It must be said that the Military Industrial Complex is in reality the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. So what could be done to rein in this behemoth that is absorbing so much of our collective wealth? The first step must be public education and even though the topic is hardly mentioned in the conventional media or the Congress, the public seems to understand that something is wrong. Gallup Polls over the last five years (left) have shown increasing concern that the government is spending too much money on the military. Although it has not yet reached the magic 50% number, one could believe that if the issue begins to get into the public discourse it could easily attract a plurality of voters. At that point the automatic votes that flow out of Congress for every military pork barrel project could be called to account. Last year's defense budget was $521 billion plus $200 billion in War supplementals. It would seem a goal in the near term would be to have a total military budget for 2011 of $440 billion. as I noted earlier in the year when I put forth a New Federalist budget.

I would start with the $90 billion in new weapons procurement and the $68 Billion in R & D. Take a 15% cut ($25 Billion) just like any corporation facing reality would. Then I would build a more “Fortress America Posture”-far fewer foreign bases, using the carrier fleet and the Marines as the rapid reponse arm. I would remove the permanent bases in Korea and Germany and bring those troops home.

That saving of $300 billion ought to be plowed into alternative energy infrastructure and other projects that would begin to seed a new industrial base for America. One that is not based on cost maximization and monopoly rents, but on the kind of competitive high tech marketplace that Silicon Valley has excelled at. Of course the only way to make this happen circles back to Marcuse's quote that open's this piece. The media must stop being complicit in creating the mental state of perpetual fear which is the breeding ground for the Military Industrial mindset. Whether that is possible is of course, another matter.

25/06/2008, São Paulo – Lançamento do Livro Curso de Teoria Crítica

Seguido de mesa-redonda Direita e Esquerda Hoje: Teoria Crítica e Pena.

O livro pretende apresentar da maneira mais clara possível autoras, autores e temas da Teoria Crítica para um público de não especialistas. Apresenta tanto autores bastante conhecidos como Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse e Jürgen Habermas, como outros que, apesar de sua grande importância, são praticamente desconhecidos do público brasileiro, como Friedrich Pollock, Franz Neumann e Otto Kirchheimer. Um terceiro bloco pretende examinar configurações atuais da Teoria Crítica na Alemanha e nos EUA.

A mesa redonda Direita e Esquerda Hoje: Teoria Crítica e Pena terá participação de Marcos Nobre (Unicamp/Cebrap), Maíra Machado (Edesp-GV/NDD-Cebrap), José Rodrigo Rodriguez (Edesp-GV/NDDCebrap) e Marta R. A. Machado (Edesp-GV/NDD-Cebrap).

No ano de 2006, o professor Marcos Nobre (Filosofia/Unicamp) e outros especialistas ministraram um concorridíssimo curso sobre Teoria Crítica no Goethe-Institut São Paulo. Ali foi plantada a semente que gerou "Curso livre de Teoria Crítica", organizado por ele e lançado pela Papirus Editora.

25/06/2008, São Paulo - Karin Lambrecht

A artista gaúcha Karin Lambrecht (Porto Alegre, 1957) apresenta na galeria Nara Roesler  uma composição pictórica em homenagem a Albert Camus, registrando o dia em que o autor de O Estrangeiro esteve em Porto Alegre: 9 de agosto de 1949.

Suporte denominado pela artista como “anotações de pintura e desenho”, a obra inédita constrói por meio de vários planos a atmosfera real de um pequeno quarto de dormir e coloca em suspensão a obra literária do consagrado escritor. Além deste trabalho, serão apresentados quatro telas  e cinco desenhos recentes.

Com uma cruz, signo recorrente na obra de Karin, rebatida no chão, com um colchão e uma mesa no centro, além de luz e projeção, a artista revisita, 50 anos depois, a estada de Albert Camus na capital gaúcha. “Ela mistura a existência real do escritor com o sentido existencial de sua obra evocando o céu cúmplice do ato de Meursault (O Estrangeiro) ou ainda o da infância do artista na distante Argélia”, escreve Paulo Reis, brasileiro radicado em Portugal, professor de História da Arte da Escola Superior de Educação do Instituto Politécnico do Porto, em Portugal. A cruz no trabalho de Lambrecht, como aponta o crítico Agnaldo Farias, além de signo da cristandade, é o gesto que fazemos da testa para o tronco, de um ombro para o outro, como a demarcação de um território, a afirmação de um lugar onde se está.

Karin Lambrecht é egressa da geração 80, quando participou da famosa Como vai você, Geração 80?, realizada no Parque Lage, Rio de Janeiro, em 1984. Desde então, realiza individuais e participa de coletivas, como Bienal Brasil Século XX, Fundação Bienal de São Paulo (1994), e Bienais Internacionais de São Paulo (1985 e 1987). Entre as mostras mais recentes destacam-se: em 2005, Lágrimas, Mosteiro de Alcobaça, Portugal, Dor, Forma Beleza, Estação Pinacoteca, São Paulo e 5ª Bienal do Mercosul – VETOR: A Persistência da Pintura - Armazéns do Cais do Porto, Porto Alegre; em 2006, Manobras Radicais, Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil, São Paulo; em 2007, Mulheres Artistas - olhares contemporâneos, Museu de Arte Contemporânea, Universidade de São Paulo, Ibirapuera, SP, Anos 70 - Arte como Questão e 80/ 90 Modernos Pós-Modernos etc, Instituto Tomie Ohtake, São Paulo.

25/06/2008, São Paulo - Marcelo Silveira

Marcelo Silveira (Gravatá, PE,1962) apresenta a série Arquitetura de Interior composta de 12 peças em madeira e vidro e 12 livros.

Com estes trabalhos inéditos ele sublinha mais uma vez o ambíguo significado dos objetos. O artista questiona a intenção daquelas peças colocadas em cima de mesas, ao lado de sofás, ou mesmo nas estantes, apontando como a matéria pode conter também a expressão do vazio.

Esta série é composta de peças que não foram feitas para serem  manipuladas. As obras em  madeira encapsuladas em vidro – que confere ainda maior profilaxia estética aos objetos –    foram denominadas ironicamente de Chocolate, Cuscuz, Rolha etc. O mesmo se dá com os livros, feitos com capa de couro e folhas de papel de presente que, parafusados, não podem ser abertos, existem para ser apreciados como pintura. Marcelo Silveira mais uma vez inverte a ordem das “coisas” para apontar o pensamento que atravessa a sua produção: ausência e presença. Por que para as coisas existirem elas precisam estar?, pergunta Marcelo.

“A maneira como articula matéria-prima e procedimento, representação e achado, imagem e  objeto, narrativa e forma, têm sido a principal marca da obra de Silveira. Assim, desde trabalhos do início desta década, duplicar, seriar e repetir são procedimentos para o artista avançar na sua poética de, ao mesmo tempo, aproximar-se do mundo e negá-lo”, escreve o crítico Rodrigo Moura.

25/06/2008, São Paulo - La Fin Des Terres

Apresentação da Companhia Philippe Genty de Circo-teatro, com a proposta de um universo onde as imagens absurdas, irrisórias e cruéis se encaixam de forma associativa, sem lógica narrativa, como num sonho.

25/06/2008, São Paulo – Aos Nossos Olhos

A Galeria Leme apresenta “Aos Nossos Olhos”, primeira exposição individual de Nina Pandolfo no Brasil.

A artista, que começou a grafitar nas ruas de São Paulo em 1992, é uma das pioneiras da “street art” no país e faz parte do grupo que levou o grafite para museus e galerias de arte.

Os principais temas de seu trabalho são a infância e a natureza. Nina baseia-se na relação entre o olhar inocente das crianças e o olhar adulto para retratar meninas com cara de levadas e imensos olhos que expressam sentimentos secretos espelhados pela alma. A artista também reconhece a beleza em todos os animais, dando destaque aos insetos em seus murais e pinturas.

“Aos Nossos Olhos”, já começa nas ruas próximas à galeria. Nina cria grafites que cobrem muros e entram pela galeria, onde apresenta quatro esculturas e sete telas em grande formato.

As esculturas, feitas em resina, látex vulcanizado e tecido, representam meninas brincando e pintando em momento lúdico, como se os problemas fossem meras preocupações momentâneas, onde o impossível não existe e sonhos tornam-se realidade.

As telas, também feitas com técnica mista, recebem aplicações de CRYSTALLIZED™ - Swarovski Elements e peças de crochê, e retratam a imaginação destas crianças misturadas ao olhar adulto em um confronto entre pureza e malícia.

Em seu trabalho, Nina Pandolfo explora o tema universal da relação entre identidade interna e externa. O objetivo de seu trabalho é mostrar que podemos ver a vida através de um ângulo mais simples, com mais esperança, amor e sinceridade, e que as mesmas imagens podem ter diversos significados.

25/06/2008, Rio Grande do Sul - Transfer

Expressões artísticas ligadas à cultura urbana estão na mostra "Transfer", aberta ao público no Santander Cultural, em Porto Alegre.

Com cerca de 300 trabalhos de mais de 100 artistas brasileiros e estrangeiros, a exposição reúne pinturas, vídeos, desenhos, fotografias e até uma "planície skatável" projetada especialmente para o evento.

Entre os artistas de fora do Brasil que participam da mostra está o coletivo surgido nos Estados Unidos BeautifulLosers. São apresentados na mostra trabalhos de 27 artistas envolvidos com o grupo, entre eles os cineastas Harmony Korine ("Gummo") e Larry Clark ("Kids" e "Ken Park"), o fotógrafo Terry Richardson e Shepard Fairey, artista norte-americano que chamou a atenção ao colar extensivamente nas ruas dos EUA lambe-lambes de seu personagem Obey Giant, inspirado no campeão de luta-livre francês Andre the Giant (1946 - 1993). BeautifulLosers tem uma ala dedicada ao seu trabalho, com curadoria do norte-americano Christian Strike.

A exposição conta com mais três seções, uma delas abordando artistas brasileiros contemporâneos que se destacaram por meio de ilustrações para fanzines, cartazes de shows, pranchas de skate e capas de discos. Denominada Mauditos, esta ala tem curadoria de Fábio Zimbres e Alexandre Cruz - também conhecido como Sesper -, e apresenta trabalhos dos desenhistas Jaca, Lourenço Mutarelli, Luís Fernando Schiavon, Marcatti, MZK e Speto.

Há ainda em "Transfer" as alas "Street Fine Art", dedicada a artistas de rua brasileiros - como Bruno 9Li, Herbert Baglione, Kboco, Nunca, Stephan Doitschnoff, Tinho, Titi Freak e Vitché -, e Intervencionistas, com registros em fotografia e vídeo em sua maioria de sessões de skate.

No espaço desta última ala está a chamada "planície skatável", projetada para o evento pelo arquiteto Pedro Mendes da Rocha, com consultoria do coletivo Noh.

A mostra "Transfer", concebida pelo galerista gaúcho Lucas Ribeiro, fica em cartaz até 28 de setembro no Santander Cultural e pode ser visitada, gratuitamente, de segunda à sexta-feira das 10h às 19h e aos sábados, domingos e feriados das 11h às 19h.

25/06/2008, São Paulo - Geraldo de Barros na Coleção SESC de Artes

Exposição de fotografias das séries Fotoformas e Sobras pertencentes ao acervo do SESCSP.

São mais de 120 imagens desse artista que marcou a história da Arte Brasileira, participando da fundação do movimento Construtivista em meados de 1950.

25/06/2008, Minas Gerais - Comemoração do Centenário de João Guimarães Rosa

Exposição e palestra em homenagem ao centenário de João Guimarães Rosa.

Em comemoração ao Centenário de João Guimarães Rosa, o Foyer do Grande Teatro recebe a exposição do busto em bronze, esculpido pelo artista plástico Edgar Duvivier, do escritor mineiro. A inauguração da escultura acontece no dia 25 de junho, às 20h, no Foyer. Em seguida, no Teatro João Ceschiatti, a Presidente da Academia Familiar de Letras João Guimarães Rosa e prima do escritor, Enny Guimarães de Paula, fala sobre a convivência com o autor de Grande Sertão: Veredas na palestra Joãozito, o escritor.

A obra fica em exposição até o dia 25 de julho.

Ambas reflexiones resultan muy pertinentes ya que nos llevan al centro del fenómeno descrito una y otra vez por Pierre Bourdieu en diversas obras, pero fundamentalmente en La Distinction (Minuit, 1979), Homo Academicus (Minuit, Paris, 1984) y Les Règles de l’art (Seuil, 1992). En apretadas y resumidas cuentas, la producción de capital cultural y la estructuración jerárquica de los distintos campos de producción cultural (la academia científica o la artística, la definición misma de quién es intelectual, científico o artista según ciertas reglas), están organizadas en función de las necesidades y estrategias de legitimación de la clase hegemónica. Las prácticas de los científicos (formas de diálogo, formas de producción de conocimiento), a las que se refieren Adolfo y Felipe, no son otra cosa entonces que las disposiciones para la acción de dichos agentes para sobrevivir sin contradicción o problemas en la lucha por adquirir cierto poder o mantener una posición o status quo cómodo dentro del respectivo campo de producción cultural. Pero no es de Bourdieu y el homo academicus de quien quiero escribir aquí, sino del problema del “científico unidimensional” y su uso por Estalella. Y aquí va mi crítica (amigable) a Adolfo.

El concepto de "científico unidimensional" no puede ser utilizado sin escuchar ciertas resonancias de la obra más conocida de Herbert Marcuse, One Dimentional Man (Boston, Beacon 1964), sobre todo por parte de un científico social que se pregunta acerca de que postura asumir frente al peligro de convertirse en eso. Y si bien es cierto que el problema del diálogo del productor de conocimiento (diálogo con quién, para qué) es uno de los puntos clave del asunto en los textos de Adolfo y Felipe, no resulta el aspecto fundamental sobre el que haya que decantarse para evitar seguir siendo un “científico unidimensional”.

La idea de Marcuse acerca del hombre unidimensional surge del análisis de la sociedad de post guerra que, después de los años cincuenta, se convirtió en una sociedad sin oposición en la cual la función crítica respecto al poder quedó paralizada. Parte de la estrategia para la construcción de la ficción de la sociedad democrática occidental del siglo XX pasó por intensos procesos de institucionalización de los derechos y las libertades (entre ellos el del pensamiento crítico) y, por consiguiente, de la función renovadora y revolucionaria de la producción y el uso del conocimiento. Es ahí donde aparece el hombre unidimensional, que produce y reproduce acríticamente los elementos legitimadores de dicha ficción.

El trabajo de Marcuse se escribió y publicó previamente a las grandes revoluciones sociales y culturales que significaron los diversos movimientos de finales de la década de los sesenta. Sin embargo, y a pesar de la contundencia de las grandes transformaciones que significaron los hechos de aquellos años, las clases hegemónicas han sabido mediatizar los nuevos derechos y libertades adquiridas con nuevos procesos de institucionalización que han logrado neutralizar el criticismo y han venido a reforzar la existencia del hombre unidimensional bajo la ilusión de mayor democracia, mayor libertad, mayor capacidad de acción, inclusión de las minorías antes marginadas a una vida política y la creación de plataformas (como la blogósfera) que ayudan a mantener la ficción de que existe una opinión pública activa, crítica y con peso en las decisiones.

La respuesta entonces a la pregunta (muy válida) de cómo dejar de ser un científico unidimensional, no pasa solamente por el problema de los diálogos y lo espacios de producción de conocimiento, sino por la naturaleza (crítica o no) de los mismos, es decir, por la construcción colectiva de un hombre omnidireccional.

2. 'Normal' is generally based on a biological conception of the human subject according to which measurable processes, quantifiable in their relation to others of their kind, can be compared to determine the pre-defined level of correspondence with conceptual criteria for judging relative 'health' against the abnormality, or "disease."

3. Those in mental health, however they may defer to the same standards of the physician in determining normalcy, according to an individual's socio-economic demographic, must take its standards from the societal context surrounding the individuals in questions; thus, 'normal', as a social construction (i.e. one which derives its objective status as the abstraction of human relations' interpretation), it is based on a subjective context.

4. Since environment is necessary to therapeutic treatments of the abnormal, a certain level of arbitrariness may be present in determining the appropriate functioning of any member of a social class based on differences which may require one to conform under improper circumstances.

5. Society's standards of normativity-as-health could, in isolation or free from outside contribution (because inefficient in misdirecting particular impulses as 'non-desirable' according to one set of assumptions in conflict with other necessities), require adjustment under threat of discipline.

6. To compensate with the pressures of the split between ideal potential and actual, human experience, the individual might bear a disproportionate share of the strain opening up a dichotomy between being manipulated and controlling to the point of subsuming even subjective necessities of instinct to the general dictates of technological, administrative and scientific discourse in preference to that of the individual's health unconsciously.

7. 'Control' in advancing industrial society must of course always be practiced with an end in mind and by whom; but since healing this gap requires the concentration of a good deal in mental energy's spirit re-directed to the acquisition and trade of goods and capital needed to perpetuate the cycle of treating these ailments and maintaining that, the needs of standardization for projection are centralized diffusively through community, groups, media, companies—in de iure fascist states, government: The human sciences and industries which treat and supplement their various abberations and manifestation become bound up in the business of their own representation.

8. So the social world becomes intertwined with people's psychology in a manner directly related to the basis for judgment of what normal may be.

9. This leads to uniform health for the individual's mental in state only in the event that societal relations and distribution of resources are directed toward being free in peace and happy; when certain aspects, perhaps one, of these break down, the continuing repression of the wider populace needed to contain their natural instincts at the cost of normalness more generally in appearance of social conformity ignites the psychologically motivated release of aggressive behavior.

10. Since normative development is that of reaching one's full emotional and mental capacities to fulfillment, the stifling of individual development is in fact promoting a non-justified use of aggressive, if not violent, force.

11. As the pace of technological development quickens, new ways of recreating and labor come to bear on social relations; values become associated with each other through metaphorical interpretation; physical work is de-emphasized by technology proceding and service-oriented or 'administrative' efforts take precedence; the establishment re-orients traditional values while retaining conservatism's facade: An increasingly less personal space.

12. Technology is ideological because it can be used or pursued in different ways according to varying logic by multiple individuals all applying their own interpretation of its use valued intention; that which trains can be used to enslave.

13. The possibility of a world based on competition, but not on beating the opposition, to get ahead is the real threat to the established system.

14. When this logic is internalized amidst the 'people = corporation' psychosis of capital: That's when people become destructive of themselves and/or those around you because those same impulses can be directed into the labor system or social relations to sustain achievement; though to an extent unavoidable, when urges are systematically preyed upon and controlled to maximize profit in a disregard for human life or that of the environment—things get chopped up into only either subversion or repressive.

15. The balance between these two poles maintained in a system based solely on dehumanizing competition devolves onto factional aggression, mob mentality, leads to excessive force of violence.

16. Militarization takes places in conjunction with the desensitization to the glorification of various methods to annihilate human beings, even at times comical, as if these acts were on the same level as sports, news and less serious offenses.

17. Killings are commodified as human life is devalorized and their images perpetuated in sensationalistic depictions of mutilation, torture (i.e. "interrogation") and rationalized violence.

18. The craftiest part, of course, would be the specification of tolerable allowances for puppet forms of criticism which further perpetuate the discriminatory rhetoric, reduplicating itself, to cover these atrocities under the illusory banner of necessity or choice. 

19. This logic of psychosis frames itself in non-reconcilable, oppositional dualities designed to prefute all dissent in advance.

20. The actual kernel of fact these paranoid depictions of 'threat' are based around is generally misrepresented as a threat or impediment to continued progress rather than having the capability to actually conduct full-scale aggression; rather ironically, I'd add.

21. Aggressive action throughout the modern west has heretofore been quite successful in promoting progress and affluence, leisure time for active pursuits (painting, science, provoking wars; writing books) but at the cost of continual, but non-sustainably, growth to occupy a disproportionate share of resources towards futile ends in maintaining its decadent means of livelihood: This makes for overstratification socially a level of competition within class and between individuals that creates its aggression.

22. The 'marxist' bit here that makes the squares all hot and bothered hankering for the Soviet days when their major fear was that the damn commies might nuke every one of us—even worse should nothing happen—vs. the palpable sense of breathing terror that AQ might down your plane or pop your ass for dealing trade with the wrong hand signals overseas is actually a historical form of rather moderate materialist means (basically, technological ones of production) rather than an anti-capitalist rhetoric of critique which is implicit in its psychological reformulations (à la Sartre) but that I've had to over-emphasize to make each paragraph's propositional thesis in series (i.e. argument) concise.

23. Technological aggression is satisfied by a physical act perpetrated with an automatic device (more powerful by far than s/he that employs it) for various purposes in expending energy to be consumed—aside from that of human intellect or interaction, ingenuity—which is mediated through the object in question to which the ostensible subject surrenders agency in order to obliterate someone as a thing made hatefully inconvenient to the point of constituting a non-immediate threat (i.e. one that makes the terrorist feel threatened by); the illogic inherent seems that "instinctual satisfaction" is thwarted, but as the basic drive remains unaddressed, the 'super-sublimated' frustration (I assume means "pre-conscious, animal drives made unconscious, left denied, so elevated to one's psyche—a subjective control to defeat it") leads to "repetition and escalation" in a manic equivocation that "more force = desired result" (with the September 11th example, retaliatory acts of Al Qaeda and Intelligence Community-sponsored terrorism that people thought wouldn't count as long as no one knew or talked of them): Personal responsibility is bracketed as irrelevant to the material fact of the issue, some variety of institution or object, idea alleged as the actual culprit and pawned off as a slightly more representative variety of minor incontinence we deal with everyday.—feelings of guilt get displaced, thus reinforcing this strategy of terror-for-profit, to be re-focused on a removed sense of self providing the illusion of accountability with none of the requisite admission of oneself in negotiation of interpretations with an other (negation of an author, if you will) as the expansion of advanced capitalism becomes involved in a fateful psychical dialectic which enters into and propels its economic and political dynamic

24. Previous forms of aggression required some means of engaging instrumentality by means of the body, whereas modern types justify their use of force through solely the technology used to perpetrate them and are absolved at all responsible action.

25. Aggression mediated through technology, being especially easy to incite amongst the short-sighted consumerist and anti-erotic tendencies of Puritanism (this is what Gravity's Rainbow was about—and just because it's really hard doesn't mean it didn't have its point), now leading to wide-scale destruction without any personal involvement at all: Especially for subjective interpretations of alleged 'defense'

26. American 'war'-logic: Well if they're going to do things don't look to US like human, it's not like corrupting a virgin to go dehumanize 'em a little more (thus learning the proper, Enlightenment-spawned, capitalist method of violating human rights).

27. 'Truth' gets turned into what's on the news and which conspiracy theory you believe refutes the most dominant paradigm.

28. The continued mania of competition 'impersonally' needed to get ahead in business, when applied to other areas of life, leads to the devaluation of human beings, as outlined above; but also makes fail the inter-personal subjectivities in love which Marcuse here seems to be implying is the foundations for aesthetic appreciation of beauty... Leading to forms of repression.

29. So a glut of aggression may underlie even 'normal' behavior in publicity, media—publication—and this can be recognized by means of its insistence on repetition of phrase & image, false confessions—forms of compulsion,—all lies: It leads to a complete divorcing of thought from feeling and, though effective in calming certain neuroses resulting from intellectual ("tax-farmer") endeavor, it is ill-suited—likely by some form of un-intelligent design—to encouraging empathetic, critical and humane capacities.

30. Any time you're talking about people, there is also a mental component—as important as the political—to be addressed; just because something is useful to society does not follow it is a good idea to perform that action—even if just once—because what is useful right just now may not be very good beyond that immediate application: A form of categorical imperative, I s'pose.

www.wbenjamin.org/marcuse.html

On Gravity’s Rainbow

www.dod.gov

Archive

Article paru le 15 juin 1968 dans la Quinzaine

Herbert Marcuse, philosophe allemand qui vit depuis longtemps aux Etats Unis, passe pour l'un des inspirateurs du mouvement de contestation qu'incarne à peu près partout dans le monde, aujourd'hui, la jeunesse étudiante. On a publié de lui, en français : Eros et civilisation (Ed. de Minuit), Le marxisme soviétique (“ Idées ”, Gallimard), et vient de paraître, très opportunément, L'un de ses ouvrages essentiels : L'homme unidimensionnel.

Marcuse fonde son analyse à partir du champ d'observations que constitue la société américaine, parangon de la société capitaliste à son plus haut point de développement. Il la caractérise comme une “ société close ” en ce sens “ qu'elle met au pas et intègre toutes les dimensions de l'existence privée et publique ”. Les forces d'opposition qui, dans les étapes antérieures du capitalisme, luttaient contre le système, sont désormais intégrées dans ce système et utilisées par lui. Elles deviennent “ facteur de cohésion et d'affirmation ” dans L'ouverture de ce système vers l'extérieur : expansion économique, politique et militaire. A l'intérieur du système “ le mal se montre dans la nudité de sa monstruosité comme contradiction totale à l'essence de la parole et de l'action humaines ”. Ce qu'il exporte, c'est une “ forme de vie ” fondée sur la non-liberté et la répression.

Pour Marcuse, la revendication de liberté doit abandonner son caractère “ idéologique et poussiéreux ” pour se reconnaître comme un instinct de vie non sublimé. C'est la jeunesse qui l'exprime dans sa “ dimension profonde ”, “ biologique ”, “ organique ”, “ vitale ”. Dans sa “ rébellion à la fois instinctuelle et politique, la possibilité de libération est saisie ”. Malheureusement, il manque à la jeunesse, pour réaliser celle ci, “ la puissance matérielle ” qui n'appartient plus, non plus, selon Marcuse, à la classe ouvrière.

Cela ne signifie pas qu'il n'existe plus de contradictions dans la société capitaliste. Mais elles jouent à l'intérieur du système et sont finalement aplanies si l'on ne dépasse pas le schéma marxiste des forces de production. La “ négativité ” représentée par la jeunesse et qui s'oppose à la “ positivité ” du système dans son entier doit contester celui ci et le combattre “ en tant que tout ” à partir de l'existence même des hommes “ dans leurs besoins vitaux ”

Dans sa préface à L'homme unidimensionnel, écrite en février 1967, Marcuse déclare cependant que la guerre du Vietnam prend figure de tournant dans l'évolution du système capitaliste, celui-ci apparaissant désormais comme “ crime contre l'humanité ” et ayant à faire, pour la première fois, à des forces de résistance “ qui ne sont pas de sa propre nature ”. Pour la première fois également coïncident “ des facteurs objectifs et des facteurs subjectifs du renversement ”. Marcuse attend que se manifeste un “ contre-mouvement international et global ” qui peut seul arrêter l'expansion du système. Et il définit ainsi la tâche présente : “ Réveiller et organiser la solidarité en tant que besoin biologique de se tenir ensemble contre la brutalité et l'exploitation inhumaines. ”

Les thèses que nous venons brièvement de résumer sont examinées au fond par Henri Lefebvre et confrontées avec les raisons de tous ordres qui ont mené chez les étudiants à l'explosion de mai en France.

Henri Lefebvre

Pendant le séjour d'Herbert Marcuse à Paris, entre le 6 et le 13 mai, plusieurs opérations idéologiques se déroulent autour de lui. A l'Unesco, un colloque international tente d'enliser définitivement la pensée marxiste dans l'académisme. Sous le signe du sérieux, on embaume Marx et son œuvre. Marxistes de tous les pays, officiellement unis, rivalisent de “ scientificité ”. De son nom, de son prestige, Marcuse avalise, alors qu'il a précisément montré dans “ One dimensional man ” comment la rationalité constituée en corps scientifique entre dans l'ordre de la société industrielle avancée (1).

Pendant cette semaine agitée, le mouvement étudiant passe sur les débris d'idéologies diverses, non pour laisser la place vide, mais parce qu'un besoin théorique se fait jour. Les étudiants refusent les représentations et images qu'on leur a offertes, y compris l'humanisme classique et le technocratisme environnant. Ils souhaitent une théorie neuve, dans l'élaboration de laquelle ils se veulent partie prenante. C'est alors qu'on leur propose Herbert Marcuse pour “ maître à penser ” et qu'on présente sa thèse de la société close.

Cette thèse pousse jusqu'à son terme logique le concept de la réification ; elle l'étend à la réalité sociale entière. Que montre H. Marcuse ? Une société tellement structurée qu'elle se fige. Le mouvement n'y est plus qu'apparence. Elle intègre et réintègre jusqu'aux opposants, et seuls les désespérés peuvent tenter l'assaut. Très exactement, Herbert Marcuse met au pied du mur. Quel mur ? Seule une pratique peut répondre.

S'il y a mouvement, si le mouvement élargit une fissure, c'est que la muraille se lézarde, c'est qu'elle peut s'effondrer. Et voilà une critique en acte de la “ société close ”, du moins en ce qui concerne la France et l'Europe. Si l'on prouve que les phénomènes sociaux ne rentrent plus dans les concepts élaborés par Marcuse, c'est que son analyse ne suffit pas. A la critique en acte correspondra une critique théorique, sur un terrain autre que celui occupé par Marcuse.

Enfin, si la réflexion peut donner forme à des spontanéités, on aura déterminé ce qu'il y a d'acceptable dans la pensée d'Herbert Marcuse : sa fonction utopique pendant une période.

Ces événements ne relèvent pas d'une seule analyse. Ils peuvent se mettre diversement en perspective. Par exemple, on peut les examiner du point de vue du savoir, de son contenu (analytique ou synthétique, fragmentaire ou global) et de sa transmission (plus ou moins dogmatiqu