BLACK KNIGHTS 07/08 AT: Marcuse K

team biopower aka soft power aka martin luther king, JR 1/3

AT: Marcuse
1. NO LINK – ALL YOU’VE GOT IS A GENERIC LINK TO HUMAN RIGHTS, WE DON’T OPPOSE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BECAUSE IT’S A “RADICAL OPPOSITION TO THE LIBERAL ORDER,” WE OPPOSE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BECAUSE PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN ARE ROUTINELY RAPED, BEATEN, AND MURDERED IN A CORRUPT PRISON SYSTEM THAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN EFFECTIVELY REFORM. 2. PERM – THE K POSES A FALSE DILEMMA IN WHICH WE MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO ANTIPODAL ALTERNATIVES OF TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE, THERE IS NO COMPETITION BETWEEN THE PLAN AND THE ALT AND THUS THE K HAS NO WEIGHT ON THE EVALUATION OF THE ROUND. THIS ALSO PROVES WHY THE RATIONAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO THE NEGATIVE’S COUNTERFRAMEWORK. 3. TURN – THE ALTERNATIVE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DICTATORSHIP OF “MARCUSEAN ELITES” WHO ALONE CAN FIGHT THE OPPRESSION OF TOLERANCE, CONSIGNING THE REST OF HUMANITY TO THE ROLE OF IRRATIONAL
SHEEP

FOPP 07 [Rodney, Professor @ University of South Australia, “Herbert Marcuse’s ‘Repressive Tolerance’ and his Critics”, borderlands journal Vol 6 No. 1, 2007.]
16. A second criticism of RT concerned the antidemocratic and intolerant implications of Marcuse's proposal for a new elite which allegedly had the revolutionary insight the masses did not possess, and who would expose the current forms of the autocratic and intolerant state which masquerade as liberal and tolerant. One of the few comprehensive analyses of RT is that by Richard Lichtman (1988) who also discerned this autocratic hue in it. He argued 'that Marcuse

is open to the

charge of despotism' since 'he is clearly required to nominate some elite to break the hold of the one dimensional consciousness and lead the multitude from their false consciousness to emancipation' (Lichtman 1988: 301-302).
17. Likewise, Charles Taylor (1970: 51) claimed that a necessary formation of a 'new vanguard' who could lead the charge, and free the majority from being duped, was a consequence of Marcuse's position in RT. Taylor maintained:

Marcuse's theory ... forces him ultimately to see the majority [of] the population not as semi-rational human beings like the rest of us who are partly convinced and partly tempted by their life experience to go along with a lousy and unjust system, but rather as irrational objects of manipulation. The result is a disastrous politics of elite shock tactics, a new 'vanguard' theory hardly more attractive than the old. The majority must be liberated from themselves by the Marcusian minority which alone is rational.
18. Alasdair MacIntyre (1970: 89-90) concurred with Taylor's assessment arguing that: 'The

major premise of his whole argument is once again that the majority are effectively controlled by the system and so moulded that they cannot hear or understand radical criticism'. Further, '[I]t follows that the people have no voice and the alternatives are not between genuine democracy and the rule of an elite, but between rival elites, the repressive elite of the present and the liberating elite of the Marcusean future' (MacIntyre 1970: 91; Lichtman 1988: 204; Kettler 1976: 43).

BLACK KNIGHTS 07/08 AT: Marcuse K

team biopower aka soft power aka martin luther king, JR 2/3

4. MARCUSE CONCEDES THAT UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN TOTALITARIAN DEMOCRACY IS MORE HUMANE THAN A DICTATORSHIP OF THE MINORITY – THIS IS A DISAD TO THEIR FRAMEWORK AND A REASON TO PREFER THE AFFIRMATIVE’S FOCUS ON HUMAN SUFFERING. MARCUSE 65 [Herbert, crackpot cultural Marxist and your own damn author, “Repressive Tolerance,” in A Critique of Pure Tolerance pg . 95-137, published 1965]
The factual barriers which totalitarian democracy erects against the efficacy of qualitative dissent are weak and pleasant enough compared with the practices of a dictatorship which claims to educate the people in the truth. With all its limitations and distortions, democratic tolerance is under all circumstances more humane than an institutionalized intolerance which sacrifices the rights and liberties of the living generations for the sake of future generations.

5. TURN – WE’RE THE OPPOSITE OF REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE – MARCUSE WOULD CRITICIZE A POSITION OF CULTURAL TOLERANCE WHICH WOULD SAY “LET THEM RAPE, MURDER AND SUBJUGATE EACHOTHER, IT’S JUST THEIR CULTURE” – WE FORCE JUDICIAL REFORM THAT ELIMINATES REPRESSIVE ISLAMIC LAW 6. MARCUSE AGREES – THE AFGHANI MAJORITY SHOULDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY

MARCUSE 65 [Herbert, crackpot cultural Marxist and your own damn author, “Repressive Tolerance,” in A Critique of Pure Tolerance pg . 95-137, published 1965]
In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The

small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old
but also of their new masters.

7. THE ALT IS RIDICULOUS, I’M GUESSING THE NEG HAS NEVER READ MARCUSE OR THEY’D KNOW THAT HE IS
CRITICIZING THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE MUST BE TOLERANT OF LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC POLICIES BUT AT THE SAME TIME BE INTOLERANT AGAINST RADICAL ELEMENTS WHICH OPPOSE THE LIBERAL ORDER LIBERAL ORDER OF THE WORLD AND THUS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISSENT.

– IN FACT THE

LINK TO HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE IS THAT IT IMPLIES THAT THE OPPRESSORS HAVE SOMEHOW OPPOSED THE

THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SHUN THE “BAD PEOPLE” UNTIL THEY COME TO THEIR SENSES AND CHANGE THEIR WAYS, IS PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY WHAT MARCUSE IS CRITICIZING, AND LINKS TO THE K A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN THE CASE DOES – YOU CAN VOTE AFF ON THE K RIGHT HERE, THIS IS OFFENSE THAT THE NEG CAN’T GET OUT OF.

BLACK KNIGHTS 07/08 AT: Marcuse K

team biopower aka soft power aka martin luther king, JR 3/3

8. MARCUSE AGREES – HIS FOCUS IS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTOLERANCE TOWARD RADICAL EXTREMES AND FORCED TOLERANCE TOWARD THE ESTABLISHED LIBERAL MAJORITY. MARCUSE 65 [Herbert, crackpot cultural Marxist and your own damn author, “Repressive Tolerance,” in A Critique of Pure Tolerance pg . 95-137, published 1965]
I shall discuss this question only with reference to political movements, attitudes, schools of thought, philosophies which are 'political' in the widest sense--affecting the society as a whole, demonstrably transcending the sphere of privacy. Moreover, I

propose a shift in the focus of the discussion: it will be concerned not only, and not primarily, with tolerance toward radical extremes, minorities, subversives, etc., but rather with tolerance toward majorities, toward official and public opinion, toward the established protectors of freedom. In this case, the discussion can have as a frame of reference only a democratic society, in which the people, as individuals and as members of political and other organizations, participate in the making, sustaining, and changing policies.

9. EVEN ABSENT THE NEGATIVE’S UNFORTUNATE CHOICE OF ALTS, THIS K LINKS TO ITSELF ANYWAY – THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOLERANCE RESULTS IN ADVOCATING THE VERY INTOLERANCE THAT THE K OBJECTS TO FOPP 07 [Rodney, Professor @ University of South Australia, “Herbert Marcuse’s ‘Repressive Tolerance’ and his Critics”, borderlands journal Vol 6 No. 1, 2007.]
One criticism of RT relates to what was perceived as an inconsistency in his position, namely, that the

withdrawal of tolerance Marcuse proposed resulted in his advocacy of the very intolerance to which he and his followers objected. It was argued that in advocating intolerance to certain groups, beliefs and activities, Marcuse was condoning the very repression he condemned. Alasdair McIntyre (1970: 91) exemplifies this position: 'The new Marcusean radical case against intolerance makes those radicals who espouse it allies in this respect of the very forces they claim to attack, and this is not just a matter of their theory, but also of their practice'.