Herbert Marcuse

Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was a German Marxist philosopher who worked with the Institute for Social Research during its American exile . His writings examined what a socialist revolution should change and how culture could help people accept capitalist society.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Marcuse traced his political education to the upheavals around the end of World War I. In a later discussion, he recalled belonging to Germany's Social Democratic Party in 1917–1918. He said he resigned after the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. He opposed the party's alliance with what he called “reactionary, destructive, and repressive forces.” His objection concerned whom the party supported; he accepted using opportunities within existing institutions to change society.^[6]

By 1928, Marcuse was writing as a committed Marxist. In “Contributions to a Phenomenology of Historical Materialism,” he called Marxism “the theory of the proletarian revolution.” In plain terms, workers were supposed to overthrow the capitalist order. Understanding society and acting to change it belonged together.^[2]

He was also looking for a philosophy that could explain people's actual lives. Marcuse later recalled reading Martin Heidegger's Being and Time in 1927 and returning to Freiburg to study with him. He hoped to combine Heidegger's attention to human existence with Marxism. His 1928 essay attempted that combination. He later concluded that Heidegger's approach left out the concrete conditions of class and work that Marxist analysis needed to explain.^[2]

Reading Marx's newly published writings from 1844 gave Marcuse another way to approach those questions. He examined the manuscripts in his 1932 essay “New Sources on the Foundation of Historical Materialism.” He focused on alienation: workers created goods and wealth, yet their labor and its products belonged to a system they did not control. Marcuse read the problem as a loss of control over human life itself.^[2]

That reading gave his Marxism a goal beyond higher wages. Changing society meant ending the conditions that reduced people to workers serving demands imposed on them. Marcuse described the revolutionary purpose as “the overthrow of the capitalist system” through workers' economic and political struggle. He also stressed Marx's criticism of a communism that merely spread compulsory labor and possession among everyone. Collective ownership had to change how people lived and worked.^[2]

During exile, Marcuse helped explain the political purpose of the Institute's research. His 1937 essay “Philosophy and Critical Theory” connected its work to Marx's criticism of capitalism. Theory could provide “theoretical leadership” for the groups expected to transform the economic order.^[3]

He argued that people's needs should determine how work was organized. Production should serve their freedom and happiness, rather than requiring them to fit their lives around its demands.^[3]

That standard applied to socialism as well as capitalism. State planning and the abolition of private ownership could still leave people powerless. Marcuse wanted the proposed revolution to change the conditions under which people lived and worked.^[3]

Marcuse also contributed an account of how culture could help preserve the existing order. His 1937 essay “The Affirmative Character of Culture” began with an acknowledgment: Horkheimer's remarks about culture had prompted it. The essay developed a question they shared about the relationship between people's beliefs and their material circumstances.^[4]

Marcuse argued that culture could promise freedom and happiness in an inner world while leaving everyday hardship untouched. People might find comfort in the “beauty of the soul” or in art while continuing to endure poverty and dependence. Culture could then help them bear conditions they might otherwise seek to change.^[4]

He connected that argument to capitalism's promise of freedom. People were declared equal, but their access to the means of a good life remained unequal. In his account, the promise of inner fulfillment helped reconcile that gap. The political task was to make happiness possible in people's actual lives through changes in work and social organization.^[4]

Marcuse also saw a conflict within art itself. Great works could express suffering and awaken a desire for a better life. Culture could comfort people within the existing order and give them reasons to reject it. His essay asked which role it played and under what conditions.^[4]

In Reason and Revolution (1941), Marcuse developed the philosophical argument behind that criticism. He traced the connection between Hegel and Marx, arguing that reason could judge an existing institution against the freedom it prevented people from enjoying. The fact that an institution existed did not settle whether people should preserve it.^[5]

The book also challenged the claim that Hegel's philosophy led toward fascism. Marcuse argued that its critical ideas conflicted with fascist rule. His preface, signed at the Institute at Columbia University in March 1941, explained his effort to present Hegel to “an American and English public.” Oxford University Press in New York encouraged and published the work.^[5]

Marcuse's 1941 essay “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology” examined another part of industrial life. Published in the Institute's journal, it treated technology as a way of organizing people and production. Who directed that organization, and whose purposes did it serve? Machines could support freedom or strengthen domination.^[7]

He illustrated the problem with a motorist. Roads, maps, signs and roadside businesses guided the driver's journey. Following their directions was convenient and sensible. Yet others had already planned much of the experience. The driver exercised choice within arrangements made in advance.^[7]

Marcuse used the example to explain how obedience could come to feel reasonable. Industrial organization offered real benefits while asking people to adapt to requirements set elsewhere. His criticism of capitalism therefore examined managerial control and the habits encouraged by efficient production.^[7] His demand that socialism change how people lived extended to the organization of work itself.^[3][7]

The war also changed Marcuse's working life. In his November 11, 1942 letter to Horkheimer, Marcuse described a proposed position at the Office of War Information. Pollock had urged him to avoid a hasty decision, warning that the Institute's money might last only another two or three years. Marcuse disputed that forecast and wanted to continue their theoretical work.^[8]

By December 2, Marcuse reported that Pollock had urged him to accept the position as a leave of absence from the Institute. Marcuse wanted to consult Horkheimer about assignments and develop cooperation with wartime agencies. By December 11, he reported working in Washington, reading the European press on microfilm and transcripts of shortwave broadcasts.^[8]

Marcuse's own account of later assignments describes work on 1944 guides for the occupation of Germany. He collected information, drafted policy suggestions and discussed them with planning staff. The subjects included dissolving Nazi organizations and dealing with German political parties.^[9]

He also described preparing a report for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Germany's Social Democratic Party. Published in September 1945, it examined the party's strength, policies and likely course under occupation. Marcuse identified American occupation policy as its intended use. Establishing which recommendations officials adopted requires the decision records as well as his account of the work.^[9]