Marcuse- Repressive Tolerance (1965)
I'm not going to post the notes I took of this essay.
The basic outline of Marcuse's argument:Ā
Tolerance is usually a good thing because it allows an opportunity in the marketplace of ideas.Ā
Tolerance only operates when there is authentic information and autonomous thought.Ā
Western technological societies have brought false consciousness, so that people are unable to challenge the establishment.Ā
Tolerance has therefore lost its purpose in the western societies.Ā
Breaking the grip of the establishment will require intolerance, undemocratic, and even violent means.Ā
How can we known which side is just?Ā Ā
The rational way of using societies resources is to distribute the social product with priority on the satisfaction of vital needs with a minimum of toil and injustice.Ā Ā
The Left supports this, the Right doesnāt, so tolerance towards the Right needs to be withdrawn.Ā Ā
Marcuse's argument hinges on several assumptions:Ā
1. Those in the west (broadly) are incapable of autonomous thought and authentic information.Ā
2. The most rational ordering of society is broadly more leftist than right.Ā
3. Tolerance for the regressive right ought to be withdrawn, in order to restore true balance.Ā
I don't accept these assumptions, so I want to challenge them.
His first assumption is that the western nations are broadly incapable of autonomous thought and authentic information.Ā
This happens because capitalist societies produce material comfort that integrates workers into the system, so instead of rebelling, they become satisfied consumers. They internalize the system's values so that dissent becomes culturally suppressed. Marcuse sees this as manufactured, not genuine consent.Ā
Because of this, even democratic debate is structurally distorted. The marketplace of ideas is controlled by dominant interests, and economic power shapes what opinions gain visibility. What looks then like tolerance is merely preserving the existing hierarchy.Ā
But these claims don't really work. Capitalism is a system that produces enough material comfort to integrate workers so they become satisfied. That's what a system is supposed to do, it's not a sign of evil. Would Marcuse be suggesting that a system, in order to be considered legitimate, OUGHT to produce enough problems that an equal amount of its populace dissents from it?Ā
If Marcuse's ideal society existed, wouldn't IT produce enough comfort to integrate its citizens so they are satisfied?Ā
It seems to me that the widespread satisfaction of those in western societies is simply rational approval of their lot, rather than ideological manipulation. Marcuse treats this satisfaction itself as suspicious.Ā But I can't think of a valid reason to do this. The explanation seems to be that since Marcuse was a Marxist, and Marx predicted the working class would grow increasingly alienated until it revolted. That didn't happen, so Marxists justified this by declaring the working class had been bought off.Ā Ā
The second assumption is that the leftist model of what society ought to do is better than the right's view. In general, the liberal western viewpoint is that man should be left alone to set his own agenda. This means individuals have rights, and correspondingly, they have responsibility for themselves.Ā
Broadly, the left curtails that view by asserting that collectively, society should provide for the basic needs of all members, even those that aren't providing for themselves. Marcuse states this as: "The rational way of using societies resources is to distribute the social product with priority on the satisfaction of vital needs with a minimum of toil and injustice."Ā
But this is merely a value judgment about what society ought to prioritize. Marcuse assumes the socialist view is objectively rational, but that assumption is itself, what the political debate is about.Ā
What Marcuse manages to do is declare his view the winner, and then declare tolerance of the other view must be withdrawn, even to the point of violence against it.Ā
The third assumption is that, even given that the broad populace has somehow been manipulated into believing false ideas, and that the Left model is clearly best, so that tolerance should be withdrawn from the Right's viewpoint; that intolerance would actually lead to aĀ society that is more just.Ā
One of the examples Marcuse gives in the essay is what he calls the "Orwellian" slogan- "We work for peace by preparing for war." He says these two are opposites. Two actual examples from Orwell's 1984 are "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery". Is preparing for war the actual antithesis of working for peace? Clearly there is an argument to be made for the statement. Two sides don't perfectly know what the other will do. One way to show the other side that it would be wise NOT to wage war against you, is to demonstrate that it will be very costly to them to do so. That is actually an effective deterrent. So preparing for war, doesn't mean going to war, it means you are prepared to wage war if it comes down to it. Marcuse might have provided a better example of an Orwellian phrase with the title of his essay: Repressive Tolerance. Tolerance is the allowance of ideas or things you don't agree with, while repression is the opposite. Repressive tolerance is therefore an oxymoron. One can't repress in order to arrive at tolerance. At best you can call it forced equality.Ā Ā
That assumes that equality is the same as justice. But if one has to use force, which even Marcuse himself calls violence, is one producing a more just society by using violence? Isn't that the very thing that Marcuse is accusing western societies of?Ā Ā
To be fair, I'm sure Marcuse was aware enough to recognize that his title was ā¦. paradoxical. What I think is that Marcuse is using the best arguments he could to arrive at his predefined conclusion: the right must be stopped because he disagrees with it. This little essay became the intellectual justification for radical activism, and it still is today. Much of what is called "cancel culture": deplatforming, hate speech isn't free speech,Ā etc, comes from the arguments Marcuse set forth here.Ā Ā
