Herbert Marcuse and the end of Utopia (3 of 3)

Marcuse's second public lecture carries the dramatic title, "The Problem of Violence and the Radical Opposition". I'm sure it sounded hair-raising to conservatives and not only conservatives at the time, and would today. But probably not for very good reasons. He talks about the problem of institutionalized violence, which was a very immediately reality to left-leaning political activists in West Berlin especially, with the lecture coming very soon after the police killing of Benno Ohnesorg. And he talked about the right of resistance (Shapiro/Weber translation):

I should like to say at least a few words about the right of resistance, because I am astonished again and again when I find out how little it has penetrated into people's consciousness that the recognition of the right of resistance, namely civil disobedience, belongs to the oldes and most sanctified elements of Western civilization. The idea that there is a right or law higher than positive law is as old as this civilization itself.

I'm surprised, as well. Because anyone who claims to admire the American Declaration of Independence should understand that basic concept. He describes this concept again from a somewhat different angle in response to a question after the lecture (Shapiro/Weber translation):

If in a democracy we defend civil liberties, we are in fact defending the laws of the Establishment. But unfortunately that is too simple. For example, the police and their ordinances are also positive law. In general we can in fact say: we are the ones who defend democracy. But that changes nothing about the fact that in the same breath we must add that we are fully conscious that we are violating positive law and that we believe we are justified in so doing.

But Marcuse was not using an abstract discussion about the right of resistance to egg his audience on to planning violent acts. On the contrary, he urged them to be cautious and sensible in their tactics. Again, this comes in the context of enormous anger among young activists over the Ohensorg murder just days before. So this comment of Marcuse's surely came off as a warning to keep their heads cool and clear when thinking through this issue (Shapiro/Weber translation):

To seek confrontations only for their own sake is not only unnecessary, it is irresponsible. Confrontations are there. They do not have to bedrummed up. Going out of the way to find them would falsify i.e., overrate the strength of] the opposition, for today it is in a defensive, not offensive, position.

He wasn't declaring a global principle there, he was addressing a very particular historical moment in the economically advanced societies.

In the same lecture, he expands on his analysis of the role of the "marginal" movements in promoting a critical attitudes toward the "affluent society". But he is also emphatic in stating that neither the student movement, nor the hippies, nor even the Third World liberation movements of the day (Shapiro/Weber translation):

...do not by themselves constitute an effective revolutionary threat to the system of advanced capitalism. All force of [fundamental] opposition today are working at preparation and only at preparation - but toward necessary preparation for a possible crisis of the system.

Again, any talk of revolution or revolutionary ideas gave the more conventional-minded the heebie-jeebies. But, if anything, Marcuse's advice in this presentation are striking for the emphasis on caution and restraint. He did not see any immediate potential for a mass mobilization of the public in countries like the US or West Germany for a left movement that would seek fundamental changes beyond what would be accomodating by, the Democrats and Republicans in the US or the conservatives and social-democrats in Germany (Shapiro/Weber translation):

I believe that we must see this crisis as the confluence of very disparate subjective and objective tendencies of an economic, political, and moral nature, in the East as well as the West. These forces are not yet organized on a basis of solidarity. They have no mass basis in the developed countries of advanced capitalism. Even the ghettos in the United States are in the initial stage of atttempted politicization. And under these conditions it seems to me that the task of the [radical] opposition is first the liberation of consciousness outside of our own social group.

That last sentence, in more conventional mainstream terms would read, "And under these conditions it seems to me that we have to first sell our poltiical ideas to a much wider segment of the public."

The 1980 edition of Das Ende der Utopie includes the transcript of a panel discussion including Marcuse, the now-legendary student leader Rudi Dutschke, Peter Gäng, René Mayorgan and Bahman Nirumand, the latter an Iranian emigrant who had achieved prominence in the German left for his critical book on the Shah's regime, Persien, Modell eines Entwicklungslandes, oder, Die Diktatur der Freien Welt (1967). Nirumand still writes and publishes today, including the monthly iran-report online for the Green Party's Heinrich Böll Stiftung. The topic was "The Third World and the Opposition in the Metropoles", "metropoles" in this context meaning imperialist countries. The participants assumed that advanced capitalist countries in general and the United States in particular were part of an imperialist system. Marcuse as well as the German New Left generally also understood the Soviet Union as acting in an imperialist fashion in Eastern Europe.

Here again, Marcuse's position may be surprisingly restrained. Although he did think that the movement toward increased independence in the underdeveloped world, particularly the Vietnam War, would cause increasing economic and political difficulties for imperialism, he cautioned against assuming that such developments would inevitably radicalize the traditional working class in the advanced countries. Nirumand echoes the same caution, saying that there was no prospect of an immediate revolution in the developed countries like West Germany. Nirumand argued not only that a mass consciousness of the need for revolution was absent, but also "the material basis for the revolution". In the latter case, he apparently means that workers have sufficiently comfortable living conditions to discourage any fundamental opposition to the existing system.

Marcuse reinforced these notions. He also stressed the importance of understanding the present world capitalist system as imperialist: "Wir haben es hier, wenn je, mit einem Imperialismus von einer Weite und von einer Macht zu tun wie er überhaupt bisher in der Geschichte noch nicht da war." ("What we are dealing with here, if there ever has been such a thing, with an imperialism of an expanse and with a power that we have never seen before in history.")

This exchange is also interesting because Marcuse talks about the Middle East situation. Marcuse's appearances in Berlin were June 10-13, 1967. The Six-Day War between Israel on the one side and Egypt, Jordan and Syria on the other began on June 5 and concluded while Marcuse was in Berlin. That war was a turning point for Israel's overseas image in a variety of ways. For the leftist activists in Germany, it meant that Israel was very soon cast in the role of an accomplice to imperialism and the Arab and especially the Palestinian struggle against Israel came to be seen as an authentic and critical anti-imperialist effort. Marcuse said (my translation):

In dieser Situation möchte ich das, was ich jetzt sage, viel eher als meine persönliche Meinung Ihnen zur Diskussion vorlegen als als eine objektive Analyse der Situation. Sie werden es verstehen, daß ich mich in einer sehr persönlichen und nicht nur persönlichen Weise mit Israel solidarisch und identisch fühle. ... Ich kann nicht vergessen, daß die Juden jahrhundertelang zu den Verfolgten und Unter-driickten gehörten, daß sechs Millionen von ihnen vor noch nicht allzu langer Zeit vernichtet worden sind. Das ist eine Tatsache. Wenn endlich fur diese Menschen ein Bereich geschaffen wird, in dem sie vor Verfolgung und Unterdrückung keine Angst mehr zu haben brauchen, so ist das ein Ziel, mit dem ich mich identisch erklären muß. Ich freue mich, daß ich auch hier mit Jean-Paul Sartre übereinstimme, der gesagt hat: was unter allen Umständen verhindert werden muß, ist ein neuer Vernichtungskrieg gegen Israel. Von dieser Voraussetzung müssen wir in der Beantwortung der Frage ausgehen, und diese Voraussetzung enthält durchaus nicht ein Endorsement Israels oder eine völlige Billigung der anderen Seite.

[In this situation I would to like to present what I'm now going to say to you in the discussion much more as my personal opinion than as an objective analysis of the situation. You will understand that I feel myself in a very personal, and not only personal way, in solidarity with and completely identified with Israel. ... I cannot forget that the Jews belonged for centuries to the persecuted and suppressed, that six million of them were destroyed not so very long ago. That is a reality. If there a place for these people has finally been established where they no longer have to fear being persecuted and suppressed, then that is a goal with which I have to declare myself completely identified. I am happy to agree here with [existential Marxist and French Communist] Jean-Paul Sartre who has said: what must by all means be prevented is a new war of extermination against Israel. From this assumption we must proceed in answering the question [about the Middle East] and this assumption absolutely does not include an endorsement of Israel or a complete disparaging of the other side.] [my emphasis]

Marcuse continues directly to say that the founding of Israel did indeed result in injustices to the Arab population - he doesn't use the term "Palestinians" here - and that Isreali policy has displayed "racist and nationalistic" tendencies. He encourages his audience to recognize that while while Isreal has closely allied itself with US policies and the Soviet Union was supporting the Arab nations against, that the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot simply be reduced to a matter of Arab anti-imperialism versus Israeli/American imperialism. Not least because the oil companies' relationships to conservative Arab rulers like those in Saudi Arabia could scarcely be characterized as anti-imperialist.

It's somewhat unclear, though, what he meant by the following statement about the Six-Day War of that very month (my translation):

Tatsache ist, daß ... arabische Stellvertreter ... laut und deutlich erklärt haben, daß der Vernichtungskrieg gegen Israel geführt werden muß. Auch eine Tatsache. (Es tut mir schrecklich leid; kann nachgelesen werden.) Unter diesen Umständen und in diesem Zusammenhang ist der Präventivkrieg, und ein solcher war es gegen Ägypten, Syrien und Jordanien, zu verstehen und zu bewerten.

[The reality is that ... Arab representatives ... declared loudly and clearly that a war of extermination must be waged against Israel. Also a reality. (I'm terribly sorry; you can look it up.) It is under these circumstances and in this connection that we should understand and evaluate the preventive war, and such it was [by Israel] against Egypt, Syria and Jordan.] [my emphasis]

We have sadly had much reason in connection with Bush's invasion of Iraq to reacquaint ourselves with the meaning of "preventive" war. A "pre-emptive" war is legitimate in international law, meaning that if a nation is facing imminent attack, it can legimately initiate hostilities. Even though the threatened side "shot first", a pre-emptive war is legitimate and counts as a defensive war. However, a preventive war in international law is an illegal war of aggression. Given the context of Marcuse's statement, I assume he misspoke on that point. He is obviously supporting Israel's right to have attacked first in the Six-Day War and is arguing that Israel's action was legitimate pre-emptive war, although he uses the very different term preventive war.

Tags: critical theory, herbert marcuse