Global Capitalism and Radical Opposition

Herbert Marcuse’s Third Presentation18

I see the United States as representing the highest stage

in the development of monopoly capitalism, yet what I think
is the entire picture of American society today varies. The
unusually high degree of social cohesion, integration, the high
degree of popular support for the established system. Not for
the government, but for the system itself as such. And this
high degree of social and popular cohesion has applied when
the economic and political difficulties of American capitalism
are increasing.

They are increasing on a global scale. They make

themselves felt at home. And still there is not in the United
States any organized opposition. There is no radical
opposition, in fact, on the mass scale. There is not even an
equivalent to, let’s say, the British Labour Party and the Social
Democratic Party in Germany.

And all this, not only at the time of increasing capitalist

difficulties, but also at the very time when new forces of
radical change make their appearance for the first time in
history.

In order to be able to understand this strange

phenomenon, it will be necessary to have a close look at
integration. I will presently define the term. I will start by
pointing out that this integration, this popular support, takes
place on a large material and cultural base. In other words, it

18 April 18, 1974.

21
 Herbert Marcuse

is certainly not merely and ideological phenomenon. It has, as

I will try to show you, a strong material base.

Secondly, we will have to discuss the emergence of

historically new forms and forces of disintegration and
liberation. I see in the situation of the United States, and
certainly not only in the United States, precisely this as the
most important aspect: the emergence of historically new
forms of disintegration which have not yet become aware of
their own potentiality, their own power, which have not yet
developed their own consciousness. Ultimately, I believe that
the Twentieth Century revolution, if it is to come, that this
revolution will be the most radical and the largest in scope in
all history, that it will not only be a political and economic
revolution, but also a cultural revolution in the sense that it
will transform, it will engage, some of the most basic values of
our civilization.

Let me now briefly show how this integration of the

population with the established system works. I mean by
integration the acceptance of, and even the identification with,
the capitalist system among the majority of the population,
including the majority of the working class. It follows, if this is
a fact, that they will try to keep others, who certainly exist in
the United States, within the framework of the capitalist
system and, perhaps, even within the frame work of the
capabilities of capitalism.

Now this integration takes place on three very

different levels. First, in the sphere of consumption American
society today has succeeded in satisfying material and cultural
needs. In other words, in satisfying the needs beyond the mere
subsistence needs for a large part, perhaps for the majority, of
the population, the increasing productivity of the service
industries churns out more and more comforts, luxuries, and
 Global Capitalism and Radical Opposition

services like organized vacations, traveling, and so on and so

on.

These are powerful mechanisms which bind people to

the established system, especially if and when the people
cannot imagine a better alternative. I have mentioned that
before. Whatever they may understand by socialism is
certainly not Marxian socialism or anything near it. It is, at
best, the system as effected in the Soviet Union today and the
people do not consider this a better alternative. Now, this
much for the popular integration with the system on the first
level.

The second level is what we may call the management

of the mind. The management of the mind means the
consciousness as well as the unconscious. I don’t think it is
necessary to go into detail here. You know too well, I suppose,
the progress which by virtue of the electronic industry has
been made in surveilling19 an entire population secretly, if
desired. We don’t have to go into details, but I would like to
point out two less noticeable phenomena, namely, the release
and the satisfaction of primary aggression, aggressiveness on
a large scale. The increasing violence of films and television.
The increasing aggressiveness in sports and entertainment,
and so on.

We know from Freud that to the degree to which a

social system frees the aggressive instincts of man and woman
and at the same time succeeds in keeping them within the
established framework so that they don’t blow up the society,
that this satisfaction of aggressiveness strengthens the society

19 The typescript has “surveying.” Marcuse’s comment is

quite prescient given Edward Snowden’s revelations forty years
later. ―Eds.

23
 Herbert Marcuse

which produces such satisfaction.

Similarly, strangely enough, with the opposite impulse,

namely, sexuality. It is well known that at the present stage of
capitalism, when a considerable liberalization of sexual
morality has taken place, that the family is being weakened,
not only from within but also from without. In other words,
what we see is what I have called repressive desublimation.
Repression is reduced, repression is eliminated socially, at
first impression, but at the same time without releasing the
explosive force of erotic energy. We will discuss the difference
between the two later on.

In any case, the mere release of sexuality within the

system leads to the widespread commercialization of sex.
Most importantly, sex itself becomes a commodity,
merchandise, and thereby loses the liberating forces that may
have been present. Again, it is a mechanism that serves to
bind the population to the system.20

The last level on which integration takes place is

systematic and overt repression. Students know all too well,
for example, that if there is anything that indicates radical
activity on their record, it will be all but impossible for them
to find a job, especially with the entirely negative job market.

20 In One-Dimensional Man (1964) Marcuse warned against

the social control function of the “happy consciousness” of popular
entertainment and consumerist pleasures. These deliver a
superficial sense of satisfaction through the unrestrained use of sex
and violence. This repressive desublimation substitutes reactionary
emotional release in place of rebellion. The personality remains
totally absorbed in the system of commodity production. ―Eds.
 Global Capitalism and Radical Opposition

Allied with this systematic repression we witness a

reduction of civilized sensibilities. You only have to look at
some of the decisions made by the Supreme Court in the last
years in order to see the dangerous extent of this reduction of
civil liberties and, at the same time, the systematic and
methodical increase in the power of the police, the National
Guard, and other so-called forces of law and order.

This may suffice in order at least to outline the

integration, the popular support of the system and some of the
basic mechanisms which engender this support.

And I want now briefly to discuss with you the

question of who is the actual agent21 of this repression. Or,
who is actually the dominant class, the ruling class which is in
control of American society today?

I think it is generally agreed that it is still definitely the

bourgeoisie, although in a rather different form, different from
previous periods. I mentioned before one aspect of this
difference, namely, that the division between legitimate and
illegitimate business has become increasingly obscured, if not
wiped out altogether. We can speak of a “Mafiaization”22 of
the American economy. And you know well enough that

21 The typescript has “subject.”

22 Any internet search under the terms “Mafia,” “business,”
and “leader” will reveal several websites purporting to highlight
the competencies business leaders can adapt from the Mafia. See
also, Louis Ferrante, Mob Rules: What the Mafia Can Teach the
Legitimate Businessman (New York: PenguinRandomHouse, ebook,
2011).
25
 Herbert Marcuse

mafia connections have been reported even with the White

House, the Executive Branch of the government.23

This bourgeoisie is certainly different from the classical

bourgeoisie which controlled the development of previous
stages of capitalism, and the difference is great. Is this
bourgeoisie a monolithic group? It is not a monolithic group
and the differences within, the conflicts within, the
bourgeoisie may be sharper than the conflict, whatever there
is left of it, between the people―I will try to elaborate on this
concept subsequently―and the leaders. The bourgeoisie today
as a supreme class is definitely a failing power. A failing
power with whom? The most recent explanation speaks of the
famous difference, or conflict, between what is called the
Southern cowboys and the Eastern establishment. There is
today a contest within the economy, two antagonistic powers:
the older industries and banking firms mainly concentrated in
the East and the far more recent “parvenus” [new money,
rather than old money ―Eds.] in the South and Southwest,
especially the oil industry in Texas, Oklahoma, and so forth.

I think that this kind of geographical analysis of the

ruling class does not do it well. I think we have to reject it. We
have to reject it because it undercuts the common interests of
the bourgeoisie and it overlooks that, for example, Eastern as
well as Southern representatives seem to be equally powerful.

23 Santo Trafficante of the U.S. mafia, served the C.I.A. and

thus the Executive Branch of U.S. government in in attempting to
overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba (under Kennedy) and by
coordinating the illicit opium trade of South Vietnam’s Field
Marshall Ky with mafia in Marseille. See Alfred W. McCoy, The
Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)
―Eds.
 Global Capitalism and Radical Opposition

I suggest to reject a second explanation of the ruling

class today, again one which I’ve briefly mentioned before,
namely, that there arises before our eyes a new class, the so-
called knowledge class or professional class and that the
highest levels of this class definitely not only belong to the
ruling class but may outclass the most important branch of the
ruling class. This has been a concept of the post-industrial
society; in my view, an entirely ideological concept because it
overlooks the fact, or wants to overlook the fact, that not even
at the highest level of the professional and technical class, the
scientists, technicians, and engineers and so on are masters of
their own decisions. They are not. They are themselves, within
the framework of the ruling class, dependent on other strata.

It seems to me that of all the analyses of the American

ruling class today, the oldest one, namely, that offered by C.
Wright Mills, is still the best. And we know that according to
C. Wright Mills domination over the capitalist societies today
is shared and organized by three groups. One, the directorate
of the large economic corporations. Secondly, the politicians.
And, thirdly, the military. Some sociologists tentatively add
another group, namely, the leading trade union workers,
which they consider part of the new dominant class.

I tend to find that this classification is basically correct.

But it raises immediately the question: Within this
conglomerate, within this hierarchy, who prevails over the
others? The economic directorate? The politicians? The
military? Who makes the final decisions, the decisions
affecting the policies of the nation as a whole and even
important branches of regional policy? I must confess I don’t
think the question can be answered, because I believe the basic
policy decisions are the consequence and the result of
compromises among the three groups, compromises all the
way along. We are inclined to say that in the last analysis it
will be big capital that decides. But, again, big capital that has
27
 Herbert Marcuse

no unity. And we know, for example, that the military as well

as politics play an important role in the reproducing and in
strengthening the dominance of this group.

This ruling class, which not only is not monolithic but

permeated with antagonisms, has a common feature, namely,
the preservation of the established system with all available
means regardless of cost, not regardless of cost.24 And I think
it is important to note here that the demand to end the war in
Vietnam came not only from what can be called the Left in the
United States, but also from powerful sectors of big business
which considered this undertaking as wasteful and damaging.

I would like to draw your attention to one other point,

namely, the dialectic of the rulers and the ruled in American
society, the dialectical relationship between rulers and ruled.
The various components of indoctrination, manipulation, and
management of the mind also become―and this is the
interesting point―also become instruments for expressing the
will and the interests of the indoctrinated population. There is,
to use a horrible word, clearly Gleichschaltung.25 The
government and its institutions, the ruling class,
systematically makes what is called public opinion, but once
made, this public opinion, which is constantly being
reasserted, has in turn its own influence on the policy makers.

24 This seemingly confusing phrase does lead into the next

comment indicating the dialectical nature of the circumstance.
―Eds.
25 The typescript left a blank here indicating the transcriber

encountered an unintelligible word. The Gleichschaltung was the

Nazi practice of forcing all public expressions of opinion to “toe the
line” and all political action to submit to the dictator’s policies,
eliminating all opposition. ―Eds.
 Global Capitalism and Radical Opposition

The people, in a sense, indeed participate in the rule of

the society. The people can indeed express their will, which is
no longer their will but has been made their will by the ruling
class and its instrumentalities. The people as authors, the
people as buyers and sellers, in turn influence the policy of the
rulers. And it is interesting to think back, and not too long
back, when among the American Left the slogan was “Power
to the People.” “Power to the People.” The slogan is now used
to far less a degree because the question “Who are the
people?” cannot for any length of time be postponed.

There is no doubt that the people who cast their vote in

any election are even, in the sense of the system, free people
because nobody forces them to vote. But, still, are these the
same people who can become subjects of radical change? The
people can, indeed, change politics. They can make
themselves heard.26 And one of the more conspicuous cases:
You have seen, or rather read, just yesterday where in
Michigan the Democratic candidate won over the Republican
candidate who was personally supported by President Nixon.
It is the first time in the history of Michigan for thirty-two
years that a Democratic candidate won a Congressional
election. The first time in thirty-two years.

You may well imagine what political consequences this

may have. It may be an important step in bringing about the
impeachment or the resignation of the President.27 A clear case
where, indeed, the dialectic between rulers and ruled works,
because there seems to be little doubt that the opposition
against Nixon is not primarily the popular opposition, but
comes in its greatest strength today from parts within the
ruling class itself.

The typescript has “learn” where we have “heard.” ―Eds.

26

Nixon did resign in August 1974, three months after these

27

April-May 1974 lectures by Marcuse. ―Eds.

29