Diogenes

http://dio.sagepub.com/

Re-Examination of the Concept of Revolution

Herbert Marcuse
Diogenes 1968 16: 17
DOI: 10.1177/039219216801606402

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://dio.sagepub.com/content/16/64/17.citation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
International Council for Philosophy and Human Studiess

Additional services and information for Diogenes can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://dio.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://dio.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 1968

What is This?

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 Herbert Marcuse

RE-EXAMINATION

OF THE CONCEPT OF REVOLUTION

1

The concept of revolution in Marxian theory telescopes an entire

historical period: the final stage of capitalism; the transitional
period of proletarian dictatorship, and the initial stage of social-
ism. It is in a strict sense a historical concept, projecting actual
tendencies in the society; and it is a dialectical concept, projecting
the counter-tendencies within the respective historical period, in
as much as they are inherent in this period. These tenden-
cies and counter-tendencies are manifestations of which Marxian
theory and practice themselves are essential elements. Marxian
theory itself is a power in the historical struggle, and to the degree
to which its concepts, &dquo;translated&dquo; into practice, become forces of
resistance, change and reconstruction; they are subject to the vicis-
situdes of this struggle, which they reflect and comprehend, but
do not dominate. &dquo;Re-examination&dquo; is therefore an element of the
concept of revolution, part of its internal development.
1
This paper was written before the May-June events in France. I have added
only a few lines to indicate their historical significance.

17

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 This paper can raise only some of the problems involved in such
a re-examination. I shall start with a brief recapitulation of the
Marxian concepts. The revolution is:
1) a socialist revolution, overthrowing the capitalist system,
introducing collective ownership of the means of production, and
control by the &dquo; immediate producers&dquo;;
2) it initiates in the advanced industrial society (because of
the magnitude of the internal contradictions at this stage of capi-
talism, and because of the possible realization of the socialist prin-
ciple &dquo;to each according to his needs&dquo;); the shortening of the first
phase is essential, otherwise repression would be perpetuated.
3) The revolution is to occur in an economic crisis, which
weakens the established state apparatus;
4) it is to be carried out by large-scale (organized) mass
action of the working class, leading to the dictatorship of the
proletariat as a transitory stage.
The concept contains the following democratic presuppositions:
a) the revolution is a majority a$air; and
b ) democracy offers the most favorable conditions for or-
ganization and for education to class consciousness.
This presupposition underlines the importance of the &dquo;subjec-
awareness of the facts of exploitation, and of the
tive factor&dquo;:
ways to undo them; experience of intolerable conditions and of
the vital need for change are pre-conditions of the revolution.
But the Marxian concept of revolution also implies continuity
in change: development of the productive forces contained by
capitalism, taking over of the technology and of the technical
apparatus by the new producers.
What is at stake in the re-examination is not only the identifi-
cation and enumeration of those presuppositions invalidated by the
actual development, but also the concept of the revolution as a
whole, because all its elements are interrelated. This involves a
re-examination of the Marxian concept of the structural relation
between capitalism and socialism under the following aspects:
&dquo;
1) The problem of &dquo;transition:&dquo; socialism in coexistence
with, or as successor (heir) to capitalism;
18

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 2) The &dquo;rede finition&dquo; of socialism, in accordance with the
new historical stage of the global development: namely, what is
the qualitative difference of socialism as definite negation of
capitalism?
The scope of this re-examination is defined by Marxian theory
itself, i.e., by the inherent necessity to unfold the dialectical intent
of its concepts in the analysis of the social reality. To the degree to
which corporate capitalism is different from the previous stages of
capitalism, which guided the Marxian concept, and to the degree
to which the development of capitalism has &dquo;deflected&dquo; that of
socialism, and vice versa, the concept of revolution will be a
&dquo;new&dquo; concept.
But, inasmuch as the stage reached by capitalism and socialism
is the result of the economic and political forces which determined
the preceding stages, the new concept will be the internal de-
velopment of the old one.
The following sections merely propose some guidelines for the
elaboration of the new concept.
Perhaps the most general aspect of the re-examination is the
change in the theoretical f ramework, reflecting the change in, and
the extension of the social basis for the potential revolution, or for
the possible containment and defeat of the revolution.
This theoretical framework-and that of the subversive
activity-has become a global one: no concept, no action, no
strategy which does not have to be projected and evaluated, as
element and chance and choice in the international constellation.
Just as Vietnam is an integral part of the system of corporate
capitalism, so are the national liberation movements an integral
part of the potential socialist revolution. And, the liberation
movements in the Third World depend, for their subversive
power, on the internal weakening of the capitalist metropoles.
It may be objected that Marxian theory has always been &dquo;inter-
national,&dquo; also on the organizational level. True, but this &dquo; inter-
nationalism&dquo; was orientated on the industrial working classes as a
counterforce within industrial capitalism, today, they are not
a subversive force. Marxian theory paid attention to the peoples
in the colonial and backward areas, but they appeared mainly as
adjunct, ally, &dquo;réservoir&dquo; (Lenin’s term) for the primary historical
agent of revolution. The Third World obtained full theoretical
19

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

and strategic recognition only in the wake of the Second World
War, but then the pendulum swung to the other extreme. Today
there is a strong tendency to regard the national liberation move-
ments as the principal, if not as the sole revolutionary force, or
a (seemingly opposite) tendency to impose
upon these move-
ments the theoretical and organizational pattern elaborated for,
and applied to, the strategy in metropolitan areas (i.e., city-based
leadership; centralized party control; alliances with groups of the
national bourgeoisie; coalitions).
In reality, the global situation militates against a mechanistic
division into the Third World and the others. Rather we are
confronted with a tripartite division of historical forces which
cut across the division into the First, Second, and Third World.
The contest between capitalism and socialism divides the Third
World too and, as a new historical force, there appears what
may be called (and what is thus called by the New Left) an
alternative to the capitalist as well as to the established socialist
societies, namely, the struggle for a di$erent way of socialist
construction, a construction &dquo;from below&dquo;, but from a &dquo;new
below&dquo; not integrated into the value system of the old societies
-a socialism of cooperation and solidarity, where men and
women determine collectively their needs and
goals, their prio-
rities, and the method and pace of &dquo;modernization.&dquo; &dquo;

And this potential alternative (the chance of avoiding the inde-

finitely extended &dquo;first phase&dquo;, the chance of breaking the con-
tinuum of repression and domination) has sparked and intensified
the radical opposition in the advanced industrial countries (East
and West), and especially in the center of the capitalist empire.
This opposition may well be the catalyst of change. The Marxian
concept is geared to the development in the advanced capitalist
countries, and, in spite of the apparent evidence to the contrary,
the fate of the revolution (as global revolution) may well be
decided in the metropoles. Only if the strongest link in the chain
becomes the weaker link can the liberation movements gain the
momentum of a global revolutionary force.
The character of the opposition in the center of corporate
capitalism is concentrated in the two opposite poles of the society:
in the ghetto population (itself not homogeneous), and in the
middle-class intelligentsia, especially among the students.

20

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 Common to these different and even conflicting groups is
the total character of the refusal and rebellion:
1) Insistence on a break with the continuity of domination
and exploitation-no matter in what name, insistence not only on
new institutions, but on self-determination.
2) Distrust of all ideologies, including socialism made into
an ideology.
3) Rejection of the pseudo-democratic process sustaining the
dominion of corporate capitalism.
This &dquo;unorthodox&dquo; character of the opposition is itself expres-
sive of the structure of corporate capitalism ( the &dquo; integration of
the majority of the underlying population). Neither of the two
oppositional groups constitutes the &dquo;human basis&dquo; of the social
process of production-for Marx a decisive condition for the
historical agent of the revolution.
They do not make up the majority of the population.
They are faced with hostility (and resentment) among organized
labor (still the human basis of capitalist production and the
source of surplus value, and therefore still the potential agent
of a possible revolution) and they are not effectively organized,
neither on the national nor on the international level.
By itself, this opposition cannot be regarded as agent of radical
change; it can become such an agent only if it is supported by a
working class which is no longer the prisoner of its own integration
and of a bureaucratic trade union and party apparatus supporting
this integration. If this alliance between the new opposition and
the working classes does not materialize, the latter may well
become, in part at least, the mass basis of a neo-fascist regime.
Conclusion: the Marxian concept of a revolution carried by the
majority of the exploited masses, culminating in the &dquo;seizure of
&dquo;

power&dquo; and in the setting up of a proletarian dictatorship which

initiates socialization, is &dquo;overtaken&dquo; by the historical develop-
ment : it pertains to a stage of capitalist productivity and orga-
nization which has been overtaken; it does not project the higher
stage of capitalist productivity, including the productivity of
destruction, and the terrifying concentration of the instruments
of annihilation and of indoctrination in the hands of the powers
that be.

21

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 However, this &dquo;invalidation&dquo; of the Marxian concept is an
authentic and accurate Au f hebung; the truth of the concept is
preserved and reafhrmed on the level actually attained by the
historical development. The revolutionary proletariat becomes an
agent of change where it still is the human basis of the social
process of production, namely, in the predominantly agrarian
areas of the Third World, where it provides the popular support
for the national liberation fronts.
And these areas, and these forces are not external to the capi-
talist system. They are an essential part of its global space of
exploitation, they are areas and forces which this system cannot
allow to go and shift into that other orbit (of socialism or com-
munism), because it can survive only if its expansion is not
blocked by any superior power. The National Liberation move-
ments are expressive of the internal contradictions of the global
capitalist system.
But precisely because of this relation between the revolutions
abroad and the metropoles, the fateful link persists be-
tween the prospects of the Liberation movements and the pros-
pects of radical change in the metropoles. The &dquo;negating&dquo; forces
abroad must be &dquo;synchronized&dquo; with those at home, and this
synchronization can never be the result of organization alone, it
must have its objective basis in the economic and political process
of corporate capitalism. These objective factors announce them-
selves in the strains and stresses of the corporate economy:
1) The necessity of competition, and the threat of progres-
site automation, with the ensuing unemployment, demand ever
enlarged absorption of labor by nonproductive, parasitarian jobs
and services.
2) The of neo-colonial wars, or controls over corrupt
costs
dictatorships, more and more.
increase
3) As a result of the increasing reduction of human labor
power in the process of production, the margin of profit declines.
4) Society requires the creation of needs, the satisfaction of
which tends to conflict with the morale and discipline necessary
for work under capitalism. The realm of necessity is invaded by
the non-necessary, gadgets and luxury devices exist side by side
with continuing poverty and misery, &dquo;luxuries&dquo; become necessities
in the competitive struggle for existence.

22

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 If these tendencies continue to operate, the evermore blatant
contradiction between the vast social wealth and its wasteful and
destructive use, between the potential of freedom and the actua-
lity of repression, between the possible abolition of alienated labor
and the capitalist need to sustain it, may well lead to a gradual
dysfunction of the society, a decline of the morale which normally
assures the day-to day performance and the compliance with the

required pattern of behavior, at work and at leisure. This may

awaken the consciousness of the use of technical progress as
instrument of domination.
The events of May and June in France have shown to what
extent these tensions in the established society can loosen the
grip of capitalist and trade union integration, and promote the
alliance between working class groups and the militant intelli-
gentsia.
The concept of revolution must take into account this eventua-
lity of the diffuse, apparently &dquo; spontaneous, disintegration of the
system, the general loosening of its cohesion,-an expression of
the objective obsolescence of alienated labor, of the pressure for
the liberation of man from his function as agent (and servant) of
the process of production: the revolution may be seen as a crisis
of the system in &dquo;affluence&dquo; and superfluity.
In such a crisis, the historical agents of change would emerge
-and they would not be identical with any of the traditional
classes. But the &dquo;qualification&dquo; of these agents can be gauged if
we recall the perhaps most decisive element in the Marxian

concept, namely, that the historical subject of revolution must be

the &dquo;definite negation&dquo; also in the sense that this subject is a social
class free from, that is, not contaminated by the exploitative needs
and interests of man under capitalism, that it is the subject of
essentially different, &dquo;humanistic&dquo; needs and values.
This is the notion of the rupture with the continuum of
domination, the qualitative difference of socialism as a new form
and way of life, not only rational development of the productive
forces, but also the redirection of progress toward the ending of
the competitive struggle for existence, not only abolition of po-
verty and toil, but also reconstruction of the social and natural
environment as a peaceful, beautiful universe:-total transva-
luation of values, trans f ormation of needs and goals. This implies

23

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

still another change in the concept of revolution, a break with the
continuity of the technical apparatus of productivity which, for
Marx, would extend (freed from capitalist abuse) to the socialist
society. Such &dquo; technological &dquo; continuity would constitute a fateful
link between capitalism and socialism, because this tech-
nical apparatus has, in its very structure and scope, become an
apparatus of control and domination. Cutting this link would
mean, not to regress in the technical progress, but to reconstruct
the technical apparatus in accordance with the needs of free men,
guided by their own consciousness and sensibility, by their auto-
nomy. This autonomy would call for a decentralized apparatus of
rational control on a reduced basis-reduced because no longer
inflated by the requirements of exploitation, aggressive expansion,
and competition, held together by solidarity in cooperation.
Now is this apparently &dquo;utopian&dquo; notion applicable to existing
social and political forces, which could thus be regarded as agents
of qualitative change?
The Marxian concept of revolution is neither a utopian nor a
romantic concept, it insists on the real basis of power, on the
objective and subjective factors which can alone elevate the idea
of qualitative change above the level of wishful thinking, and
this basis is still in the advanced industrial countries.
In the capitalist countries, the force of the alternative appears
todai only in the &dquo;marginal&dquo; groups mentioned above: the
opposition among the intelligentsia, especially the students, and
among the politically articulate and active groups among the
working classes.
Both reject not only the system as a whole and any transfor-
mation of the system &dquo;within the existing structures&dquo;; they also
profess their adherence to a new and qualitatively different system
of values and aspirations.
The weakness of these groups is expressive of the new historical
constellation which defines the concept of the revolution:
1) against the majority of the integrated population, includ-
ing that of the &dquo;immediate producers&dquo;;
2) against a well-functioning, prosperous society, which is
neither in a revolutionary nor a pre-revolutionary situation.

24

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

 In accord with this situation, the role of this opposition is a
strictly preparatory one: their task is radical enlightenment, in
theory and by practice, and the development of cadres and nuclei
for the struggle against the global structure of capitalism.
For it is precisely in its global structure where the internal
contradictions assert themselves: in the sustained resistance
against neo-colonial domination; in the emergence of new powerful
efforts to construct a qualitatively different society in Cuba, in
China’s cultural revolution; and, last but not least, in the more or
less &dquo;peaceful&dquo; coexistence with the Soviet Union. Here too, the
dynamic of two antagonistic tendencies:
1 ) the common interest of the &dquo;have-nations &dquo; in the face of
international upheavals in the precarious balance of power,
2) the conflicting interests of different social systems, both
securing and defending their respective political and strategic
orbits.

Conclusion

The Marxian concept of revolution must comprehend the

changes in the scope and social structure of advanced capitalism,
and the new forms of the contradictions characteristic of the
latest stage of capitalism in its global framework. The modifica-
tions of the Marxian concept then appear, not as extraneous
additions or adjustments, but rather as the elaboration of Marxian
theory itself.
One aspect, however, seems to be incompatible with this
interpretation. There is in Marx a strain that may be called a
rationalistic, even positivistic prejudice, namely, his belief in the
inexorable necessity of the transition to a &dquo;higher stage of human
development,&dquo; and in the final success of this transition. Although
Marx was much aware of the possibility of failure, defeat,
or betrayal, the alternative &dquo;socialism or barbarism&dquo; was not
an integral part of his concept of revolution. It must become
such a part: the subordination of man to the instruments of his
labor, to the total, overwhelming apparatus of production and
destruction, has reached the point of an all but incontrollable
power: objectified, verdinglicht behind the technological veil, and

25

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014

behind the mobilized national interest, this power seems to be
self-propelling, and to carry the indoctrinated and integrated
people along. It may strike the fatal blow before the counter-
forces are strong enough to prevent it: an explosion of the internal
contradiction which would make a re-examination of the concept
of revolution a merely abstract and speculative undertaking. The
awareness of this possibility should strengthen and solidify the
opposition in all its manifestations-it is the only hope.

26

Downloaded from dio.sagepub.com at Library - Periodicals Dept on April 24, 2014