1. 3 Boyutlu Insan Maketi

Herbert Marcuse - Tek Boyutlu İnsan by berna6ayaz in Types > Presentations. Tek boyutlu insan marcuse pdf-Eros Ve Uygarlık - Herbert Marcuse - Ana Fikri basligi ile Muhakeme.Net.

The One-dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Herbert Marcuse عنوان: انسان تک ساحتی؛ نویسنده: هربرت مارکوزه؛ مترجم: محسن مویدی؛ تهران، امیرکبیر، 1350؛ در 259 ص؛ چاپ سوم 1362؛ چاپ چهارم 1378؛ پنجم و ششم 1388؛ چاپ هفتم 1392؛ موضوع: تمدن جید - علوم اجتماعی قرن 20 م نویسنده ی کتاب؛ برخی گرایشهای نظام سرمایه داری امریکا را، که به سوی جوامع بسته رهسپار هستند، بررسی کرده است. انسان تک ساحتی موجودی ست که در فضای آزاد پرورش نیافته، و جامعه ای بازدارنده و سرکوبگر، به بهانه The One-dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Herbert Marcuse عنوان: انسان تک ساحتی؛ نویسنده: هربرت مارکوزه؛ مترجم: محسن مویدی؛ تهران، امیرکبیر، 1350؛ در 259 ص؛ چاپ سوم 1362؛ چاپ چهارم 1378؛ پنجم و ششم 1388؛ چاپ هفتم 1392؛ موضوع: تمدن جید - علوم اجتماعی قرن 20 م نویسنده ی کتاب؛ برخی گرایشهای نظام سرمایه داری امریکا را، که به سوی جوامع بسته رهسپار هستند، بررسی کرده است.

انسان تک ساحتی موجودی ست که در فضای آزاد پرورش نیافته، و جامعه ای بازدارنده و سرکوبگر، به بهانه های: تأمین نیازها، و تدارک بهزیستی برای او، بی رحمانه گرفتارش ساخته است ا. This was a very interesting read, I'm particularly interested in this line of critique on modern society and technology, how our technology ends up imprisoning us within closed loop thinking making it difficult to avoid subjugation to the system, both in the mental and physical realms. We are reduced to instruments, all life and nature is reduced to mere tool and in the process our thinking is flattened (one-dimensional man).

We become prisoners within this paradigm, and there is no real way to This was a very interesting read, I'm particularly interested in this line of critique on modern society and technology, how our technology ends up imprisoning us within closed loop thinking making it difficult to avoid subjugation to the system, both in the mental and physical realms. We are reduced to instruments, all life and nature is reduced to mere tool and in the process our thinking is flattened (one-dimensional man). We become prisoners within this paradigm, and there is no real way to dissent, heck it is impossible to imagine beyond this paradigm because we labor under the illusion of freedom and choice, subsumed within the invisible threads of a modern industrial apparatus that precludes true freedom by dominating the mental landscape, crowding out any competing visions by force of historical, cultural, economic, social momentum and indoctrination (sheesh this is all sounding so Matrix-y). Working jobs we hate to buy things we don't want to impress people we don't care about. That kind of thing. And so long as the system delivers 'the goods,' if the material wealth delivery system functions to some degree (for some subset of people) then the status quo will grind on, buttressed by some measure of popular support. Marcuse hits upon the fact that much of the production of the system is based upon destruction, so you know that kind of view forces you to ask the question: is such a system sustainable?

Or will it implode based upon its contradictions? It seems more and more people are asking this question nowadays, because the potential catastrophic looming crises are sharpening into focus and becoming harder to ignore (imo). I had trouble following some of the parts where the critique got more technical, I found the language overly complicated and for me it became a thicket of obfuscatory language that was hard to chop through. Still I enjoyed the read in spite of those sections, I'm guessing those sections were more difficult for me because I don't have a lot of background in the technical language and fundamentals of philosophy.

Less of a strike against the author, more indicative of my own shortcomings as a reader. Anyways, the critique is interesting. It is quite pessimistic, damning, I wish I could disagree with more of it but I find a lot of it rather on point although I'm torn on certain aspects, or at least still trying to figure out what I think on certain things. The critique is relevant to our times I think, one doesn't have to agree with it, but it is great material to think about and forces one to reflect upon modern systems, and maybe the collective delusions we accept (whether consciously or subconsciously) that allow the system to keep functioning.

Δυσκολεύτηκα πολύ να το αξιολογήσω σωστά. Κάποια κεφάλαια τα διάβαζα και τα ξαναδιάβαζα. Συνειδητοποιώ κοιτώντας τις ημερομηνίες ότι όντως μου πήρε σχεδόν 1,5 μήνα να το διαβάσω. Οι λόγοι γι' αυτή την αργοπορία είναι δύο.

Δε θα ανέλυα τους λόγους αν δεν είχαν να κάνουν με την κριτική μου. Κατ' αρχήν, η λόγια και πολύ συχνά ξύλινη γλώσσα που με απωθούσε και θα ήθελα να κάνω μια παρένθεση για να εξηγήσω κάτι: η λογοτεχνία μπορεί να χρησιμοποιεί ακόμη και υπερβατικά όποια γλώσσα επιθυμεί ο συγγραφέ Δυσκολεύτηκα πολύ να το αξιολογήσω σωστά. Κάποια κεφάλαια τα διάβαζα και τα ξαναδιάβαζα. Συνειδητοποιώ κοιτώντας τις ημερομηνίες ότι όντως μου πήρε σχεδόν 1,5 μήνα να το διαβάσω. Οι λόγοι γι' αυτή την αργοπορία είναι δύο.

Δε θα ανέλυα τους λόγους αν δεν είχαν να κάνουν με την κριτική μου. Κατ' αρχήν, η λόγια και πολύ συχνά ξύλινη γλώσσα που με απωθούσε και θα ήθελα να κάνω μια παρένθεση για να εξηγήσω κάτι: η λογοτεχνία μπορεί να χρησιμοποιεί ακόμη και υπερβατικά όποια γλώσσα επιθυμεί ο συγγραφέας, οι επιστήμες του ανθρώπου συνήθως ασπάζονται ένα δικό τους λεκτικό, με συγκεκριμένες εκφράσεις και λέξεις όπου επεκτείνεται ακόμη και στα παραδείγματα πολλές φορές ( παρένθεση μέσα στην παρένθεση:p: ειδικά αυτό με τα παραδείγματα είναι και ο λόγος που παραμένει ένα απ' τα καλύτερα βιβλία Φυσικής του Σέργουεη ικανό να προκαλέσει ακόμη κι έναν άσχετο να το διαβάσει ). Είναι αυτό που δυσχεραίνει την ανάγνωση από πολλούς. Είναι ο λόγος που μπορείς να διαβάσεις την Τετραπλή Ρίζα του Σοπενάουερ απνευστί λόγω της απλής γλώσσας και των καθημερινών εκφράσεων και παραδειγμάτων με την ήπια χρήση των αντίστοιχων επιστημονικών εκφράσεων και η Κριτική του Πρακτικού λόγου απαιτεί ενέσεις αδρεναλίνης. Παραδειγματίζομαι με τη Φιλοσοφία που με έχει κερδίσει τόσο ώστε να θέλω κάθε φορά να επιβληθώ στον εαυτό μου ακόμα κι όταν το κείμενο δε με καλεί σ' αυτό. Ο Μονοδιάστατος άνθρωπος δεν ανήκει ακριβώς στη Φιλοσοφία, αν πατάει η ράχη του στη Φιλοσοφία, το άκρο των σελίδων πατάει στην Κοινωνιολογία και της οποίας το λεκτικό για 'μενα είναι απάλευτο.

Ο δεύτερος λόγος που άργησα τόσο πολύ κανονικά φαντάζει περίεργο ως λόγος για να καθυστερήσει την ανάγνωση ενός βιβλίου διότι είναι μάλλον κίνητρο για να το ρουφήξεις: Πρόκειται για ασυνήθιστα διαχρονικό κείμενο. Θα γράψω ένα μόνο παράδειγμα που δεν είναι το πιο σπουδαίο του βιβλίου αλλά είναι χαρακτηριστικό: Ο άνθρωπος σχεδόν 50 χρόνια πριν εισάγει τον όρο 'γκάτζετ' και του δίνει τον τωρινό ορισμό του. Πέρασα άπειρες ώρες στα διάφορα καταστήματα με γκάτζετς κοιτώντας όλα αυτά τα σκουπίδια και προσπαθώντας να καταλάβω την έννοια του γκάτζετ και παντού ήταν σα να τον έχω στα αυτιά μου. Και ξεκίνησα να το κάνω για να αποδείξω το αντίθετο. Δεν έχω διαβάσει άλλα βιβλία του, δεν ξέρω πως θα καταφέρω να διαβάσω κάτι άλλο δικό του αλλά σκοπεύω να το κάνω, όπως και με αυτό το βιβλίο δεν έχω τελειώσει. Ο Μαρκούζε είναι ο μεγαλύτερος προφήτης που έχω συναντήσει. Τα λόγια δεν επαρκούν.

Here's an interesting thought: Every technologically advanced society operates on a de facto ideology stemming from the technology itself, regardless of its particular political system. When television or the Internet replace newspapers, for instance, as the means by which an individual interacts with society, the concomitant replacement of words by images takes on an unforeseen brainwashing quality. This is the odd progression looked at in One-Dimensional Man, and Herbert Marcuse’s investigatio Here's an interesting thought: Every technologically advanced society operates on a de facto ideology stemming from the technology itself, regardless of its particular political system. When television or the Internet replace newspapers, for instance, as the means by which an individual interacts with society, the concomitant replacement of words by images takes on an unforeseen brainwashing quality. This is the odd progression looked at in One-Dimensional Man, and Herbert Marcuse’s investigation leaves the reader with an altered perspective, enlightened and disturbed at the same time.

The book tackles in two parts the Orwellian quality of advanced technology, one part looking at the kind of society technology brings forth, and the other explaining the kind of thinking this society engenders. As a philosophy work, it requires a rudimentary knowledge of that subject. From there, I came across enough original thinking to keep my highlighter busy throughout the read.

The nature of one-dimensional society I vaguely suspected, and Marcuse filled in the details. Modern society has gutted Enlightenment ideas, such as the right to dissent, and hollowed out concepts such as “democracy,” leaving the terms intact while eviscerating the meanings.

3 Boyutlu Insan Maketi

The book shows how it is then possible to manufacture an everyday reality for ordinary people. One example is that the pre-industrial 'battle for existence' humans once faced has long been obviated by technology, so the misery and distress found in modern societies is in fact artificially contrived.

Because modern economics needs the threat of destitution and insecurity to function. But paradoxically, one-dimensional society is far more passive in its contrived reality than previous societies. With the institutions of modern society now geared toward dissipating serious dissent, no real social change will ever be possible using the means available within that society. The section on “one-dimensional thinking” contained even greater surprises. With the media entrapping society in a permanent present, people cannot achieve the historical perspective necessary to make judgments critical of the status quo. The author goes into some depth about “universal” concepts, concepts of quality which, in one-dimensional society, are stripped of their actual importance.

How is this stripping done? Using linguistic analysis and even logical positivism, that’s how. What a cogent, provocative argument Marcuse presses on this point, and what a persuasive one. Never had I thought of linguistic analysis as actually impeding the ability to think, especially since its goal has been to improve the use of language. The author takes up many philosophical questions connected to one-dimensional thinking: dialectical versus formal logic; quality versus quantity; Plato versus Aristotle; the immediate versus the ends. Because the author takes care with his conclusions, the book is filled with more ideas than just these. But the examples, I expect, will give potential readers an idea of the original work to be found here.

First published in the sixties, this book’s theme has proven more durable with each passing year, and its relevance is far more obvious now than when it first came out. I recommend it to anyone who likes reading philosophy or is interested in the social sciences, people who like to consider novel and challenging ideas. A nice addition to Marcuse's, presents Marcuse's devastating characterization of advanced capitalist society as totalitarian.

As in his previous work, Marcuse here follows in the footsteps of Marx (tied together with Freud, actually) in criticizing the furtherance of repression in societies with highly advanced technologies-he calls for a re-appraisal of this mode of existence (which he calls domination) and a restructuring of 'work' into 'play' (foll A nice addition to Marcuse's, presents Marcuse's devastating characterization of advanced capitalist society as totalitarian. Marcuse was a very prominent figure when I was in high school and on into the seventies. While familiar to pretty much everyone with a penchant for politics, few actually went beyond the various articles by and about him or the occasional interview in the progressive press. My intellectual mentor in high school, Ed Erickson, however, had read One-Dimensional Man and passed on a copy of it with a very strong recommendation. Not having read much Marx in high school and having read no Heidegger, I f Marcuse was a very prominent figure when I was in high school and on into the seventies. While familiar to pretty much everyone with a penchant for politics, few actually went beyond the various articles by and about him or the occasional interview in the progressive press.

My intellectual mentor in high school, Ed Erickson, however, had read One-Dimensional Man and passed on a copy of it with a very strong recommendation. Not having read much Marx in high school and having read no Heidegger, I found the book hard-going at the time. Still, the fact that he criticized both the Soviet and the American systems impressed me and his analysis and rejection of American consumerism struck me powerfully. His arguments about the revolutionary potentials of fringe groups, such as we students, but also what Marx called the lumpen proletariat, while attractive, seemed also to be wishful thinking-wishful thinking I shared, mind you.

During high school and college, Marcuse was often discussed, often along with others from the Frankfurt school, but, as I said, few really knew his thinking well in my circles. The mainline media certainly distorted it, making him out to be some sort of depraved monster and nihilist which was hardly the case.

Interestingly, he was offered a high platform to address America on one occasion. Playboy Magazine offered him a pretty penny to do one of their interviews. He agreed, with one condition: he, in his seventies at the time, would have to appear as that issue's centerfold. The interview never occurred, but it was stuff like this, his humor and perceived solidarity with us young people, that endeared him to us.

A brilliant thought provoking and challenging book. Covers lots of different topics but the key one which i found relevant was the one on technology and how this has been imbibed into our minds and modus operandi. Ask yourself, if you were to start a new business for example, what would be your first thought when it came to operationalising it? Which website to launch it off i guess right? Which app to use? Technology has become such a leading driver and medium for our thoughts that its hard for A brilliant thought provoking and challenging book. Covers lots of different topics but the key one which i found relevant was the one on technology and how this has been imbibed into our minds and modus operandi.

Ask yourself, if you were to start a new business for example, what would be your first thought when it came to operationalising it? Which website to launch it off i guess right?

Which app to use? Technology has become such a leading driver and medium for our thoughts that its hard for us to think independently of it. Mark Hughes wrote the book in the 50s (i think) and some of the points are massively relevant to the twitter and Facebook generation of today. Very interesting read though in places i found it quite complicated. Yadayadayadayadayadayadayada- As well read the endless debates of the Scholastic Philosophers for all the good Marxist and neo-Marxist theorizing does anyone. Once buy into the notion of Historical Inevitability, whether it be the Inevitable Class Struggle or the Second Coming of Jesus, and human experience is open to endless criticism concerning its conformity-or the lack of it-or the antithesis of it- to the way things are spozed to go.

Instead, gimme Rachel Ray, the Tuscan Sun and bottle yadayadayadayadayadayadayada- As well read the endless debates of the Scholastic Philosophers for all the good Marxist and neo-Marxist theorizing does anyone. Once buy into the notion of Historical Inevitability, whether it be the Inevitable Class Struggle or the Second Coming of Jesus, and human experience is open to endless criticism concerning its conformity-or the lack of it-or the antithesis of it- to the way things are spozed to go. Instead, gimme Rachel Ray, the Tuscan Sun and bottle of Vin Ordinaire, ne Marx, ne Jesus.

Few books have left me more curious to read other people's reviews. Sadly, it's my impression that relatively few reviewers here, lovers or haters, have actually read the book in its entirety. Browsing the reviews, one can easily get the impression that this book is an awesome (or awful) critique of modern technological society. Which it is, but also much more. The things that many people respond to arrive within the first few sections of the book.

Lots of fluffy, vague rhetoric about industrial few books have left me more curious to read other people's reviews. Sadly, it's my impression that relatively few reviewers here, lovers or haters, have actually read the book in its entirety. Browsing the reviews, one can easily get the impression that this book is an awesome (or awful) critique of modern technological society. Which it is, but also much more.

The things that many people respond to arrive within the first few sections of the book. Lots of fluffy, vague rhetoric about industrial society, the sort of social criticism that, read with the right inner voice, becomes self-parody. It's not all that predictable though. Marcuse is surprisingly conservative on a number of fronts-in particular, his biting remarks towards women's sexual liberation come to mind. It's almost a red herring to talk about any of this though, because it's just the beginning (literally) of a much greater project. Marcuse devotes the bulk of this book to a deep, often insightful analysis of early analytic philosophy and operationalism in the mathematical sciences. Forget Marx and Adorno.

Marcuse is primarily responding to the likes of Popper, Austin, and Wittgenstein. This is a book about the ideological roots of positivism and ordinary language philosophy, and how these (then new and trendy) academic attitudes contrast with more 'traditional' dialectic modes of reason. Specifically, what is lost when we only consider the world as it is, rather than as it should be?

Reading this in 2013, the whole thing is tremendously dated, but absolutely fascinating as a piece of intellectual history. This is a beautiful (and sometimes naive) piece of meta-philosophy from before the boundaries of continental and analytic traditions (or for that matter, philosophy and science) were as rigid as they are today. It is absolutely worth reading if you are into that sort of thing.

If you have not subjected yourself to the classics of the analytic school, particularly 20th century philosophy of science and language, much of this book will be lost on you and you'll be left clutching to the easy rhetoric that bookends it. This is pretty damned radical for its time (1964).

People mock the Frankfurt school these days for reasons I do not understand. One Dimensional Man is Marcuse's best known work, though probably not his best. The question he tries to answer is rather straight forward: What has late industrial society done to us and how has it shaped our state of mind?

The problem with Marcuse (as with other Marxists, I suppose) is that while criticizing industrialization, he still holds out much hope in technolog This is pretty damned radical for its time (1964). People mock the Frankfurt school these days for reasons I do not understand. One Dimensional Man is Marcuse's best known work, though probably not his best. The question he tries to answer is rather straight forward: What has late industrial society done to us and how has it shaped our state of mind? The problem with Marcuse (as with other Marxists, I suppose) is that while criticizing industrialization, he still holds out much hope in technology as a potential tool of liberation (as opposed to a means of oppression and alienation underneath the capitalist regime).

Though I should say that One Dimensional Man is much more pessimistic than some of his other works. It is hard to argue with Marcuse when he tells us that if freed from the chains of capitalism we could stop producing so much needless crap and only work a few hours a week, but when he actually thinks this is gonna actually happen, I have to take issue with that. I think we've come very far since Marcuse and are much more likely to view industrialization as a system in and of itself that should be looked upon with suspicion-even when not tied to the Capitalist regime. Still, this book is hugely important and sets the groundwork for much future radical thought.

This book remains as important and flawed as ever and is probably MORE significant now than when it was published in 1964. A couple of weeks back, Nick Cohen wrote a salient article in The Observer in which he compared the present political situation with that in the 1930s - the last time that capitalism experienced a crisis of this magnitude (though not compounded to the same extent by the circulation of fictitious capital in the economy). The 1930s gave us a revolutionary crisis, Jarrow marche This book remains as important and flawed as ever and is probably MORE significant now than when it was published in 1964. A couple of weeks back, Nick Cohen wrote a salient article in The Observer in which he compared the present political situation with that in the 1930s - the last time that capitalism experienced a crisis of this magnitude (though not compounded to the same extent by the circulation of fictitious capital in the economy). The 1930s gave us a revolutionary crisis, Jarrow marches and the New Deal in the US. The current crisis finds the working class meek as kittens and still integrated into their own enslavement through the consumerist spectacle.

Seems Marcuse had a point about his society without opposition. Of course, in absolute terms, Marcuse was wrong because as Mattick said (Critique of Marcuse, Merlin Press, 1977) capitalism can't be planned, the working class can't be written off completely, today's students certainly aint revolutionaries and there are limits to total integration, But there's enough truth in Marcuse's words to make his dismissal by Trotskyist groups who once commanded tens of thousands in their ranks and are now insignificant a trifle premature. 'This society turns everything it touches into a potential source of progress and of exploitation, of drudgery and satisfaction, of freedom and of oppression.'

Few things I've read in the past 12 months even approximate what reading this fine book was like. As a neophyte of Marxist theory, the proceedings were at times hard to follow: I would read five pages enthusiastically, and on the sixth I would be incapable of attentive reading.

I would constantly find myself thinking about other thing 'This society turns everything it touches into a potential source of progress and of exploitation, of drudgery and satisfaction, of freedom and of oppression.' Few things I've read in the past 12 months even approximate what reading this fine book was like. As a neophyte of Marxist theory, the proceedings were at times hard to follow: I would read five pages enthusiastically, and on the sixth I would be incapable of attentive reading.

I would constantly find myself thinking about other things while my eyes read and reported words to a disinterested brain, then catch myself and put the book down. Solitude and peace or none, I found it to be tough going. Therefore, there aren't a lot of people I would recommend this to.

This isn't casual reading, and it is not reading as entertainment. Which, to me, is fine – I lost the ability to enjoy reading sometime in the last decade. I wouldn't go so far as to say this book only offers something to the academic: there is more to One-Dimensional Man than a few citations that'll throw your yuppie professor for a loop. 'The power over man which this society has acquired is daily absolved by its efficacy and productiveness. If it assimilates everything it touches, if it absorbs the opposition, if it plays with contradiction, it demonstrates its cultural superiority. And in the same way the destruction of resources and the proliferation of waste demonstrate its opulence and the 'high levels of well-being';'the Community is too well off to care!'

' I think the logical thrust of this work is irrefutable. Simply to disagree would not mark you as suspect, but I get the sense that the people who most need to read something like this will avoid it like the plague and disagree with it on ideological grounds. Marcuse is not prescient at all, but his critique is still perfectly applicable to the plight of humanity. Call it idealist if you will, but consumerism has never faced much opposition and this lack of negative critique is one of many salient points made by Marcuse. And why are things like this?

Why can people ignore the single greatest cause of economic, ecological, and social mischief? What is the crux of the matter? Are there all sorts of conspiracies or is there a rather simple explanation for the West's part-time misery?

Why don't all those goddamn OWS hippies stop protesting and start fixing problems? Consider the irrationality of nuclear fallout shelters and the society that humored them as a legitimate consumer product. The world is a much different place than it was when this book was written, and I don't think any proponent of this book would argue that point. What matters is that many of those irrational attitudes have not gone extinct.

They have evolved (or devolved) alongside us, and are as pervasive as ever. There is still a bread-and-circus show going on, and is still considered a rational thing which only 'fools', 'leftists', and 'hippies' would possibly criticize or refuse. For a work offering no answers, One-Dimensional Man answered a lot of my questions. The explanations were absurdly simple, of course, and I felt stupid and clumsy for missing the point for all those wasted years of youthful contradiction.

Unfortunately everyone's sick to death of the idea of the idea of a repressive status-quo, because they have to look after their own problems and it's silly to worry about the vague problems of a still-functioning world (this attitude divides me from many married friends and those on track to good careers, and causes much gnashing of teeth). 'In the totalitarian society, the human attitudes tend to become escapist attitudes, to follow Samuel Beckett's advice:'Don't wait to be hunted to hide.' ' I was very unsure if I could even write a review, or if I should, because in order to come up with a good one I would need to hunt for the most salient quotes – and this is not a book oriented towards the modern sound-bite model, which makes it hard to explain and incredibly foreboding (assuming we are all products of 50+ years of one-dimensional thought and behavior). It is possible to get through it, mind unblown, with some very interesting perspectives and ideas. In the end this execrable review will have to do: dismiss this great work as leftist babble if you are truly cocooned in your own ideas of the world.

Dismiss it as a pre-Adbusters Adbusters (in tone, content, form and function), if you are ignorant. While it is not likely to be wildly entertaining, nor a fast-paced page-turner, this book offers something worth much more than a few idle hours – if you've got the chutzpah to read it.

(PS: In my opinion Marcuse does not provide concrete answers, but he does criticize the limiting factor of one-dimensional existence enough that it becomes apparent that, as a species, we should not limit ourselves mentally while indulging ourselves physically. We should not focus on profits and ignore their costs. We regularly do both. This book should be enshrined alongside all the other garbage that gets taught to post-secondary students.). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society by Herbert Marcuse (Beacon Press Edition, Boston, org.

Published 1964 pb.) I read One-Dimensional Man as a philosophy student at the University of Kansas during the mid-1960s. As a reader of Hegel, Marx and Freud, Marcuse’s study of the stabilization of capitalism and the critique of capitalism’s desperate attempt to contain militarism, nationalism, consumerism and repression under the lid of “affluence” and “moral sleepi One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society by Herbert Marcuse (Beacon Press Edition, Boston, org. Published 1964 pb.) I read One-Dimensional Man as a philosophy student at the University of Kansas during the mid-1960s.

As a reader of Hegel, Marx and Freud, Marcuse’s study of the stabilization of capitalism and the critique of capitalism’s desperate attempt to contain militarism, nationalism, consumerism and repression under the lid of “affluence” and “moral sleepiness”, I thought the analysis was highly persuasive. These days, it is perhaps even more so. One wonders how long Americans, particularly those in Red States (!!) will continue to turn a blind eye to their political heroes who’ve become plutocrats, oligarchs, polluters and liars—men, mostly, who’ve taken control of the reigns of power, obliging to corporations, considerate of the wealthy and doctrinaire while simultaneously promising “them” the Moon. This is what Marcuse was talking about—“voters” who consistently vote against their own interests.