# Sustainability: The Tyranny of the 21st Century

*Herbert Marcuse*

*Why is it important to talk about Herbert MArcuse repeatedly?*
**Answer**: Because we live in his world

If you read his works, you can get a sense that someone picked this up (the new left that followed him) and saw it as a template for building the world that we live in now.

Some might say that he was "right", but it should be clear that his vision has been forced into being, and it didn't have to be this way.

Eros in Civilization (Pushing Freudian psychoanalysis into Marxian theory) - rough idea:
The new sensibility. The society we live in (advanced capitalist society) forces people to repress their libido to become productive (sexual urges, sexual drive, will to do things, Freudian libido). He says the capitalist society represses our libido/eros. Forces us to tamp it down and channel it into productive work. Repression causes you to become aggressive. The aggression and violence is inherent in the capitalist system and has its roots in the suppression of eros/libido. The libido which would have been released into the sexual realm is now released into the an aggressive realm.

In 1964 he published One Dimensional Man. A huge deal because he has this idea that the consumer society, by the same process, flattens society into a one-dimensional process. Get up, go to work, make money, buy stuff, do it again tomorrow. You don't think outside of this pattern, and everything in society reinforces this pattern to keep you stuck in it. You aren't doing a critical theory of society, and your experience in society (a discontended proletariat revolutionary).

Repressive Tolerance: we have to rethink tolerance because that which maintains and preserves this society (conservatism/right-wing thought) (maintains this repressive society) - even the most liberal person on the planet who believes (I saw on today an educator saying that our completely Marxist schools are a center right institution) even if you are this very left liberal character, but you believe in the structure of a free liberal democratic society, then you're a Fascist. You want to preserve the status quo of the existing system and only aim for incremental progress, step by step change, so you're evil. You are part of the right, according to their thought, everyone who wants to maintain the existing system instead of overthrowing it for a new one. The left are people who want to overthrow it for a new system -> radical revolutionaries. Everyone else is on the right.

For example, Helen Pluckrose who always speaks of how she on the left. She is a rightist, according to this formulation in repressive tolerance and under Marcusian thought. She is a conservative rightist, because she wants to maintain the essential character of our society. We have to rethink tolerance to be tolerant of the left (as understood this way) and be utterly intolerant of the Right.

Two different rulebooks for our society. That's what this means -> the double standards -> the left is to be given tolerance even when they are violent, because it is justified against a repressive regime - the left is supposed to be outside of the law, because the law is designed to maintain order and maintain the existing system - therefore it's all illegitimate and you have to be outside of it.

Far left by all everyday standards can be rightists through this definition.

Not only can the right not be tolerated, but they also have to be censored and pre-censored so that the thought can't even enter their head.

Hitler: if we hadn't extended to him democratic tolerance, then eh couldn't have had the holocaust, we would have avoided Auschwitz and a wworld war had we not extended him this. What's absolutely necessary or ultimately necessary is not to prevent Hitler, but to prevent the movement around him, so you need to pre-censor this from happening -> so that the thought of maintaining the society can't even enter their head. Just in case it becomes Fascistic.

In 1969 he writes the essay on liberation -> outlines, basically, what the new revolution looks like. Probably the most important essay to understand leftism since the end of the 1960s. Even taking into account woke literature, like Gender Trouble from Judith Butler, or Mapping the Margins from Kimberle Crenshaw.

4 chapters in the Essay on Liberation -> a biological foundation for socialism (freaky), a new sensibility (today in this), Subverting forces in transition (what's upsetting things right now - what is working - ghetto populations, student intelligentsia - third world liberation movements), solidarity -> a common element between all of these groups -> a new proletariat and the need to create, basically, identity Marxism. Shore up that term -> classical Marxism is vulgar, because it's only economics -> in the 1920s you end up seeing cultural Marxists, like George Lucache, Antonio Gramsci, Mao Zedong - in europe you have, out of cultural Marxism, you end up having the establishment of the Frankfurt School -> which develops the Critical Theory, or Neo Marxism -> progresses and is complicated - 3-4 generations (or siblings) ->

Generations of Neo Marxism:
1. early rumblings of Frankfurt School to Horkheimer very formal ->
2. Marcuse takes over for the 2nd generation, after Kruschez confesses to the sins of Stalin and becomes a new character on the scene
Then it splits
3. Critical Theory school stays philosophical
4. Marcuse's little revolutionaries, like Angela Davis -> they go off in a different direction

Suspicious of consumerist society, which eliminates the possibility of a marxian proletariat ever arising. Society works and they have to reckon with that, and a cultural analysis is not enough to generat ethe changes we need.

4. Dive into identity politics with Identity Marxism (the long list of traits) exasperated etc of identity categories or intersectional thought. Uses the same cultural marxism apparatus but takes identity as a proxy for culture. If you are black, you have black culture, etc. Chicanx Chicanx culture. Queer Queer culture. All of these identities become like nations, seriously, int he folkish sense, all of these guys were big fans of Friedrich Johann Herder -> a big nationalist who had the idea of a folkish religion that the people had a spirit to them, a folksgeist -> the spirit of a country that gives it its character -> a character ont he world stage. A japanese anime did this where litereally countries are represented by individuals, and they have a play, a drama playing out between them. The character becomes representative of the folksgeist -> the spirit of people. This has been transposed onto identity categories through the doctrine of structural determinism.

The structural forces of society like racims, sexism, even vulgar marxism to a degre, ableism, creates a structural expereince whihc creates a cultural experience lke being Black in a White world, or a Latinx in a cisheteronormative western-centric white world in which, still, latinx people are said to participate in whitesupremacy and antiblackness. Intersectional crap is Identity Marxism.

5thw rok of Marcuse is the counter revolution and revolt -> entertaining read -> difficult to read or get into. You have to read these things over and over to realy figure out what he's talking about.

Counter revolution and revolt -> very plain. It appeared as though the revolution was going to happen, but then society stabilizes and he started complaining about the Nixon administration and said we're going to lose communism if we don't do something about it.

Eros isn't as important as the other 4.

How to understand the contours of this world? The new sensibility -> the second chapter in the essay on liberation.

Identity marxism is the new sensibility. Intersectionality -> but more complicated than that, and the people who have read Marcuse have used him in different ways.

There are layers to this, nested ideas -> bigger outside one and the inside is intersectionality as the smaller one. It's a part of teh bigger one. The bigger one is sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY.

Derivable from his work -> big characters on the main stage are pushing htese ideas -> Klaus Schwab? George Soros? Hard to say, but these kinds of characters are pushing the sustainability agenda -> I don't know what their reliatioships are, or if they have direct ones, but they are pushing this culture of sustainability across everything big. The climate change narrative is only comprehensible this way. The virus narrative is made comprehensible this way. Everything is packaged up to be about sustainability. The center piece which Marcuse has outlined, but it's a little mroe difficult to draw it out from what's written, but it's there.

Harder to spot in some of his works than others.

Marcuse has a habit of sprinkling in big ideas in weird ways across many long tangential paragraphs. A little difficult to spot where he says it exactly, but let's get a taste.

Counter Revolution and Revolt: (this part sums it up)
The idea of sustainability -> we have to talk about it what abotu climate change what if it's unsustainable, what about our approach to population, or travel. What do we do about those issues?

Little rang ein the beginning of Counter Revolution and Revolt.
Complaining about capitalism, btu then has a little part where he vents.

Can one not make a living without that stupid, exhausting, endless labour. Living with less waste, fewer gadgets and plastic, but with more time and more freedom. It's absolutely the most important thing, usually abstract, but no longer an abstract emotional unrealistic question -. it assummes dangerously concrete, realistic, subversive forms. So the question, can one not make a living without that stupid exhausting, endless labour. Living with less wsate, fewer gadgets, less plastic, but with more tim and more freedom.

We are all working too hard. beacuse of the advanced state of technology and capitalism, we can all meet our needs without workign in the rat race all the time. We can actually eject from the rat race, if we just allow ourselves to.

And what it means is that we have to live with less. Can we not have less and work less? We'll have more time and more freedom, and less waste.

This is one of the biggest themes in Marcuse, that we need to understand to understand what he's getting at. At the end of the Solidary section of Essay on liberation:
(comparing the successes of capitalism and comparing it against the soviety and third world situations)
The absorption of unemployment and the maintenance of an adequate rate of profit would thus require the stimulation of demand on an everlarger scale. Thereby, stimulating the rat race of the competitive struggle for existence  through the multiplication of waste, planned obsolescence, parasitic and stupid jobs and servicecs. The higher standard of living, propelled by the g growing, parasitic sector of society would drive wage demands towards capital's point of no return. What he's saying is that capitalism can be imagined as a exponential growth curve, wihch we're all familiar with thanks to pandemic, and it's just growing and growing, we have to have more stuff and more money. To get that we have to work more hours. Doesn't mattter that the machines make us more productive. It doesn't matter if we are more productive and making more and more, - this is unsustainable.

 because the progress of this is going to require the stimulation of demand on an ever-larger scale. This is a bublbe which will pop, and it will, meanwhile, make people miserable as they engage in the rat-rate. Planned obsolescenc. Parasiti and stupid jobs and services. This produces a higher standard of living, but it's a parasitic

 ### Subjecting Forces in Transition
 We have this increasingly automated machine system no longer used as a system of exploitation. It allows a distantiation of labour from the instruments of production. Marx foresaw this at the end of capitalism. Technology will get good enough so that we don't have to work too much more. That extra productivity can be transformed into leisure time. The workers would cease to become the principle agents of material production, and become its supervisors and regulators. The emergence of a free subject within the realm. But that's nto what advanced capitalism is realy don't. The achievements of science and technology permit the play of the productive imagination. Experimentaion with the possibility of matter and form hitherto enclosed in the density of unmastered nature. The technical transformation of nature tends to make things lighter, easier, prettier. The loosening up of reification. The material becomes increasingly susceptible becomes increasingly susceptible and subject to aesthetic forms which enhance its exchange value, the artistic, the modernistic banks, the office buildings, kitchenm, salesrooms and salespeople etc within the tremendous framework of capitalism the tremendous growth and productivity of labour enforces the ever enlarged production of luxuries. Wasteful in the armament industry, in the marketing of gadgets, devices, trimmings and status symbols. The same trend of production and consumption which makes for the affluence and attraction of advanced capitalism makes for the perpetuation of the struggle for existence. For the increasing necessity to produce and consume the non-necessary.

 1972 - Can't we have less stuff? 1969 - complaining that what we're producing is beyond basic needs. We're no longer just meeting basic needs, because they become comfortable and then they want more stuff. Looking for things to fulfill them. An expensive hobby, classic cars, car restoration, hot rods. Blue collar guys wasting their minds and time. This is a luxury. It's wasteful. You don't need that. It's not a vital need.

 What happens, is, you get the working class, you meet their basic eneds, they start having perks to life, their man caves, sports memorabilia. They feel like they need it. That becomes a sense of a second nature that they need this stuff. Almost like these luxuries become vital needs. What thsi rpocess of advanced capitalism does is that ti takes luxuries and makes people think that they need them.

 Can't we just be happy with less? And then we wouldn't have to work, and we could have a revolution.

 Increasing necessity to produce and consume the non-necessary. Enjoyment is non-necessary, because we could be having communism.

 The growth of the so-called discretionary income in the United States indicates the extent to which income earned is spent on other-than-basic needs. Former luxuries become basic needs. You stupid working class assholes. How dare you enjoy yourself. Former luxuries become basic needs.

It's not a basic need, you don't actually need that. Why should you enjoy yourself when we could be working for our political goals. You selfish fucks.

Spending your "discretionary income" by choosing to vote for things which make our situation worse.
Working class have betrayed their revolutionary instinct. Building a stable platform of wealth so you can risk spending your extra discretionary income on things that you enjoy, mental emotional social spiritual level, but not basic needs, so screw you.

Working class betrayed your instincts and became conservative.

This is all a normal development under capitalism. You have stuff that you weren't hungry for. Capitalism snuck in and advertised to you. He Mr. Working class guy. I see you have a comfortable home. Corporate capitalism extends the business of living to newly created needs and satisfactions.

You didn't even know you needed these things until corporate capitalism came and advertised it to you.
You could have this, you could be this, you could have custom bowling shirts and shoes, a nice ball. Luxuries become basic needs. Capitalism sneaks in and extends the competitive business of living to newly created needs and satisfactions.

You might like these things, but it was newly created, you stupid conservative jerk who should have stayed miserable so you would have become a Marxist revolutionary.

Check out`Subverting Forces in Transition.`

The fantastic output of all sorts of things and services defies the imagination while restricting and distorting it in the commodity form.

Your things that make you happy are not really meeting your needs and enriching your life, and giving you a path to happiness. It's commodity form. It has been packaged up and sold to you. Corvette is enjoyed because the marketers convinced you that you're a Corvette man.

Commodity form through which capitalist production enlarges its hold over human existence.

It's not that there's an increasing set o options which allow you to enrich your life your way. Its not that you're meeting some sort of freedom dream where there's more stuff available. It's all fake, commodities, taking hold over human existence, controlling everybody, making you have to keep working in the rat race. Now you need Corvette gear, a model Corvette, track time to drive it fast.

Precisely through this spread of commodity form, this repressive social morality which sustains the system is being weakened. You don't have this repressive social morality, because you have consumer morality instead. The light and the free life on the one hand, and intensification for struggle on the other. This generates among the underlying population a diffused aggresiveness which, unless streered to hate and to fight the national enemy, will hit any suitable target. Rich or poor, jew or black.
You are racist because you can't get everything that you want. If we have an alleged national enemy. Your car and shoes ruined your authentic experience.
Horheimer said that advanced capitalism doesn't make people miserable, it helps them build a better life, and this was a crisis to these Neo-Marxists. The aggressiveness of those with the mutilated experience with false consciousness and false needs, who depend on repressive society and repressive the alternative -> communism. Their violence is that of the establishment and takes as its figures which rightly or wrongly seem to be different (revolutionaries).

## One-Dimensional Civilizational Man
This maybe isn't the best paragraph, because there are so many, but here's an example from One-Dimensional civilizational man:

People recognize themselves in their commodoties, they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split level home, kitchen equipment, god forbid you be happy with stuff you actually enjoy, (you stupid working-class shlob who is not a proletariat revolutionary). The very mechanism which has tied the individual to the a system has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced. The prevailing forms of social control are technological in a new sense to be sure the technical structure and efficacy of the productive and destructive apparatus has been a major instrumentality for subjecting the population of the established social division of labour throughout the modern period. Moreover, such integration has always been accomplished by more obvious forms of compulsion. Loss of livelihood, th administration of justice, the police, the armed forces, it still is. But in the contemporary period appear to be the very embodiment of reason for the benefit of all social groups and interests to such an extent that all contradiction seems irrational, and all counteraction impossible.

This is why James says we are stuck in Herbert Marcuse's world. This is the Iron Law of Woke Projection. Not the way he described it, he's talking about a free society generating this, but we now have a tyrranical technocracy generating this. The technological controls appear to be the very embodiment of reason for the benefit of all social groups and interest. Covid policy, enforced by his people on us. All contradiction seems irrational, you anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist. And all counter-action impossible, because we're going to fire you from your job. Loss of livelihood, coof-camp, administration of justice, cops come to make you stay in your home, radicalize the military to make sure that nobody can get away with the armed forces. They are manifesting his world, they've read this stuff, even the places where he is issuing a warning, and they've turned us into this world.

It's an odd thing.

The point is that Marcuse's view is that this new high-tech advanced capitalism changes how people are and makes them happy and make them think that they're having an enjoyable life, but what they're actually doing is stealing away the revolutionary potential.

The productive apparatus and the goods and services which produces a "cell" or impose the social system as a whole. The means of mass-transportation and communication, the commodities of lodging, food and clothing, the irresistable output of the entertainment and information industry, carry wiht them prescribed attitudes and habits. Certain intellectual and emotional reaction which bind tat the consumer, more or less pleasantly to the producers and through the latter to the whole. The products indoctrinate and manipulate. They promote a false-consciousness which is immune against its falsehood. And as these beneficial products become available to more individuals and more social classes (as poor people can get what they want, not just what they barely need), the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity. It becomes a way of life.

It is a good way of life, much better than before, and as a good way of life it militates against qualitative change. (it drives out communist discontent). (You enjoy your life, you stupid poor lower class people who can now have more beneficial products than ever, and your needs are met, and you might have stuff you like, and they indoctrinate you with that. That's how they get you. It becomes your way of life - you care too much about the corvette you worked your ass off to get.)

It's a good way of life, better than before, and it militates against qualitative change). Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behaviour in which ideas, aspirations and objectives which by their content transcend the universe of discourse and action and are either repelled or reduced to terms of this Universe. (1-dimensional key) (Thus emerges a pattern of 1-dimensional thought and behaviour in which communism is either repelled or reduced to terms of this Universe - misrepresented or commodified and bought up and brought into the existing repressive system). They are redefined by the rationality of the given system and by its quantative extension.

(This is what 1-dimensional man is all about - the capitalist consumer society eats everything and turns everything into the one-dimensional project of continuing this unsustainable project, this unsustainable growth that is going to risk everything.)

## Essay on Liberation
The argument that he makes in the briefest (near the end):

This is an unsustainable trajectory. We're going to keep making more and it's going to drive capitalism to its brink. Background milieu for the points James wants to make in the podcast:
For Marcuse, capitalism isn't just something that's going to teeter and collapse (the Neo-Marxists believed that, unlike previous Marxists, society had 2 possible trajectories out of capitalism: (not two like the traditional, who believed a strong historicism where capitalism will finally awaken those alienated feelings, discontentedness in the working class, producing a proletariat revolution, just a matter of when the conditions are made right), Fascism can happen too. Either descends into Fascism or saved by the Socialists having the revolution.). Capitalism is unsustainable, so he's begging with the reader in 1972 -> can't we just be happy with less? We'll have less waste, we'll work less, we'll be more content, we'll have mor etime, we'll have more freedom, we won't have to work as much!! The sacrifice is we'll have less gadgets, fewer gadgets, less plastic, etc. Have less stuff. If we just get the equity going and simmer it down to a lower level where people have less stuff than they want, we wouldn't have to work as hard and we'd have more time and freedom. Less planned obsolescence, etc. We're not taking care of trying to make things work in the best way, and are just pursuing profit-principle. McDonald's ice-cream machine story is an example where crony capitalism leads to a broken product, and people getting ripped off. But it's not capitalism, it's crony-capitalims which is protofascisms. The problem is always in this cronyism, and the Neo-MArxist conflates these and believes it will always happen. The FTC to step in and investigate McDonald's to find out that there is probably some kind of realy bad dastardly monopoly behaviour going on - exclusive agreement leading to a crooked need to constantly call repairmen to help make the company lots of money to the expense of the franchise owners.

They act like it's not possible, and complain, in the same breath, that capitalism is somehow causing people to have a better life which makes them forget the problems.

The problem we face now is actually the same one - we have lots of great stuff for anti-trust, where it comes to the industrial sector. We understand how to apply it, and we didn't think very well about how to apply it ot the finance and banking industry, to the big tech industry, etc. Now we have these sort of trust and crony-capitalist problems emerging again.

The irony is that they're using wokeness in Marcuse's world and imposing world on us which allows them to evade critique (no no, we're not crony capitalists, that's a right-wing thing, we're obviously left-wing radicals who screw everyone over.)

Capitalism is unsustainable - we need to generate a new sensitivity if we want to generate a liberated world where people have less and work less, have more freedom and more time. We don't work just to produce the gadgets, to sell the gadgets, to have the gadgets, etc in and endless cycle. No one needs these things, but someone migh twant them, so we're chasing a fake demand premised on the fact that nobody needs these things, but just want them as a consequence of emotive manipulation.

## Intersectionality and WEF
This will push capitalism to the breaking point (2016 WEF forum about Great Reset - Western Civlization has been pushed to the breaking point). Also, in that same video, you will own nothing and you will be happy. You can be content with less. You'll have less waste, because our approach is rooted in sustainability.

The new sensibility was intersectionality, but that's just one piece of a bigger set of a bigger new sensibility where everything is sustainable. A Circular Economy (WEF)> Perfectly sustainable - everythign is totally recycled because the economy runs in a circle. It is a circular economy so everything is environmentally sustainable. Waste, pollution, plastic. Everything has to be sustainable, sustainable working models (models), so we're not exploiting workers and their labour. We have 3 letters that go with sustainability. E S G. Environmental, Social and Governance.

Social - intersectionality
Governance - Intersectionality built-in, so we don't exploit people
Environmental - Climate side - climate justice links in intersectionality.

Intersectionality becomes constant thinking of where you are in the broader social positioning which you can measure with something like a social credit score. That becomes the dynamic by which we're all going to understand how we fit into the new sustainable, circular economy.

Sustainability becomes the new sensibility. Everything must be sustainable. Everything corpoate, everything governance, envionomentally, socially, and in terms of how we're going to actually govern companies and people. ESG.

All laid out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2030, etc.. A communist buzzword, as it turns out, rooted in this new sensibility of Herbert Marcuse.

Klaus Schwab reads Marcuse and reads this part where it says "Oh we keep making these needs which will blow up an cause capitalism to elad us towards exponential growth predicated on a fake bubble. We need to get out of that and create a circular economy, instead of linear exponential." We're going to have this whole new economy to break out of the threat outlined by Marcuse. A new way of thinking about things, instead of th previously linear economy. Totally new paradigm of thought. You can picture Schwab reading Marcuse and seeing this and then seeing all the talk about the intersectionality seeds - new proletariat - who are the losers? The global south, the global east, the ghetto populations, racial minorities, sexual minorities, radical outsiders. These people are the losers, who will shepherd them to the next thing? The liberal Intelligentisia. The students brought into the new sensibility which is communicated and taught throught eh Universities where the schools do the ought for us.

## Marcuse's Essay on Liberation (again)
Essay on liberation (3rd section): Transition forces. The development of a true consciousness is still the professional function of the universities. No wonder, then, that the student opposition meets with the all but pathological hatred on the part of the so-called community, including large sections of organized labour. (the student opposition means the radical goofball students and true consciousness is "becoming Critical Theorists". If you believe that it means becoming intellectually mature, you'll say - of course this makes sense! The little Marxists in training are the opposition). To the degree to which the university becomes dependent on the financial and political goodwill of the community and of the government, the struggle for a free and critical education becomes a vital part in the larger struggle for change. (Afraid that our society will say no and not teach Marxism in colleges, which is exactly what it was saying and should have kept saying. We have lost track of that, and now we have a big problem.) The degree to which University is dependent is the degree to which they have to struggle for a free and critical education.

No more financial and political good will.

If you are a government, defund your universities. If you're an alumni, stop funding the universities. They don't deserve financial and political goodwill, because they are rotting out society from the inside.

What appears to be the extraneous politicization of the university by disrupting radicals is today as it was so often in the past the logical internal dynamic of education. (Becoming radical in the university is what universities were always meant for. Trade off human values and knowledge and turn them into reality.) The translation of knowledge into reality. Humanistic values into humane conditions of existence.

*Humane conditions = communism.*

We're going to transform through th euniversity. The dynamic arrested by the pseudo-neutral features of academia, would, for example, be released by the inclusion into the curriculum of courses, giving adequate treatment to the great non-conformist movements in civilization (decolonized curriculum) into the critical analysis of contemporary analysis.

(Critical race theory needs to be in every level of education)

Why:
The ground work for building the bridge between the ought and the is, between theory and practice, is laid in theory itself.

(For Marcuse, the theory is religion. The theory. He is saying that it is the objective of the university to transform into something that can put the ought back into the is, because the theory is where they can be done, and the theory needs to be made center. The driving of our movement is to refuse to grow up, to mature, to perform efficiently and normally in and for a society which compels the vast majority of the population to earn their living in stupid, inhumane and unnecessary jobs. In order to sustain the profitable producivity on which the hierarchy depends. For him, theory contains the ought that will put it back into the is, and it's the university's job, it's social science's job to become the church. Trading off of humanistic values and transforming them into humanism is only achieved when we have communism.
This is what his idea is, and what the new senstibility is all about. The whole point is that the driving force of this movement.

Predicated on the idea that we need everything to be sustainable. But is it really sustainable? Does it define a version of sustainability which is most sustainable?

The driving force of this movement to buil da church out of the universities that teach Critical Theory as the bridge between ought and is - is the refusal to grow up, to mature, to perform efficiently and normally in and for a society which compels the vast majority of society to earn their living in stupid and unnecessary jobs... which, in order to sustain the profitable productivity on which its hierarchy depends, utilizes its vast resources for waste, destruction, and ever more methodical creation of conformist needs and satisfactions.

Which conducts its booming business on the back of ghettos, slums and internal on external colonialism, which is infested with violence and repression while demanding obedience from thevictims of violence and repression.

So it's gotta be intersectional. Klaus Schwab reads this and sees: Circular economy, attentive to environment, which we'll dstroy with our waste and exploitation. To do what? TO generate needless stuff, for more and more unnecessary people. And when you get into a circular economy, that's sustainable, to get away from that, so in between the sustainability paradigm, intersectionality presents as a necessary function because it's picked up as Identity Marxism - a fundamental component of this new sensibility.

So you need ESG - get rid of waste, be sustainable. You can't mention

## One Dimensional Man - Page 248
A new standard of living adapted to the pacification of existence also presupposed reduction in the future population.
(War normally does that, btu now we have to do something different).

This moral scruples are understandable and reasonable.

It is understandable, even reasonable that an industrial civilization considers legitimtae the slaughter of millions of people in war, in the daily sacrifices of all those who don't have adequate care and protection, but discovers its moral and religious scruples if it is the question of avoiding the production of more life in a society (anti-Natalism).

Production of moral life in a society which is still geared towards the planned annihiliation of life in the national interest and to the unplanned deprivation of life on behalf of private interests. These moral scruples are understandable and reasonable because such a society needs an ever-increasing number of customers and supporters. The constantly regenerated excess aapacity must be managed. However, the requirements of profitable mass-production are not necessarily identical with those of mankind. The problem is not only, and perhaps not even primarily, that of adequately feeding and caring for the growing population, it is first a problem of number of mere quantity. There is more than poetic license in the indictment which Stephane George pronounced half a century ago (Beautiful something).

THe crime is that of a society in which the growing population aggravates a struggle for existence in the face of its possible alleviation. The drive from where living space operates not only an intergenerational aggressiveness, but also within the nation. Here, expansion has in all forms of teamwork, community and fun invaded the inner space of privacy, and practically eliminated the possibility of that isolation in which the individual, thrown back on himself alone, can think, question and find, this sort of privacy, the sole condition that on the basis of satisfied vital needs can give meaning to freedom and independence thought, has long since become the most expensive commodity, available only on the very rich, who don't use it. In this respect, too, culture reveals its feudal origins and limitations.

It can become democratic only in the abolition of mass-democracy.

That is, if society succeeded in restoring the perogatives of privacy by granting them to all and protecting them from each.

A new standard of living, adapted the pacification of existence also presupposes the reduction in the future population.
Conservatives are alright with killing everyone, but they freak out if you tell them not to have more babies.

This is just a problem of numbers, the more people you have, the more places you have to put them. This drives down privacy, and our ability to be happy and sane. Mankind doesn't need that.

There will be losers in the intersectional hierarchy, so we need a sustainable, circular economy with a managed population.

This is what Marcuse was arguing for when he laid the groundwork for the new left. Sustainability becomes the new sensibility, the new paradigm he wants us all to operate iwthin. Sustainability is the buzzword of the century, is it not?

Open your damn eyes to what is being talked about with sustainability. It means communism, with a managed population, centrally planned and controlled with all the cool technology we have now: content with less, eat your damn bugs, live in your 150ft2 pod, in your super smart city where you never need to travel more than 40 minutes from your home, or 15 minute walk from your home. Basic vital needs are met. You don't need any other stuff, because it doesn't give you any real satisfaction anyway. You can own nothing and be happy!

## The Weakning of the Superpower
Under these circumstances, the preconditions for the liberation and development of the 3rd world must emerge in the advanced capitalist countries. (Make advanced societies like the third world, first - South Africa is the waystation along the way. Critical Race Theory step 1 is make America like South Africa)

Only the internal weakening of the superpower can finally stop the financing and equipping of suppression in the backwards countries.

Weird trick: that's what we have to do. We have to protect the national liberation fronts (Vietcong, cubans). Happens by stopping the western empire from funding that stuff. End the embargo etc.. One thing that he says that has to happen is that the chain of exploitation must break at its weakest link. And that can only come to fruition if the internal structure and cohesion of the capitalist system begins to disintegrate.

Corporate capitalism is not immune against economic crisis. There's a need for crises.

The change itself could then occur in a general, unstructured, unorganized and diffuse process of disintegration. The process might be sparked by a system of the system which would activate the resistance not only against the political, but also against the mental repression imposed by the society.

Almost like having COVID19, a global pandemic, as the narrow window of time in which we could spark a new Great Reset of the entire program. A new sensibility that is based in sustainability and a circular economy.

Its insane features, expression of the ever more blatant contradiction between the available resources for liberation, and their use for the perpetuation of servitude would undermine the daily routine.

You're all stuck at home wearing masks, the repressive conformity, the rationality required for the continued functioning of society. Break the functioning of society.

We can disintegrate its moral fiber, and once that has happened (because this will cause a collapse of the work disciplines, slowdown spread of disobedience rules and regulations). Once we disintegrate this, we can hit it with a crisis, and then, all of a sudden, it might flip over. The superpower can finally be weakened internally. The chain of exploitation can be broken at its strongest link.

### Soviet Economy
*The problem for him with the Soviets, in general and throughout the essay, is that the Soviets are too backwards. The highly bureaucratic socialist system they produced doesn't produce new stuff. It doesn't innovate. Somehow, the Soviet situation has to catch up. It literally has to catch up to the innovation and productivity of the advanced capitalist societies, so it can meet those basic needs which its failing at. And if it can do that, then we're in business.*

Not only a sustainability of the new sensibility, with intersectionality where we constantly think in terms of power dynamics, and who's getting screwed over according to the identities. Not only is that the new sensibility in terms of how the whole world has to be reordered, but now we have to figure out a way to weaken the capitalist superpower, hwile making the Soviet society more innovative like advanced capitalism. We have to create a dialectical synthesis of capitalism and socialism.

Isn't it useful, in the 1980s with Den Shao Ping, that the Chinese Communist context did exactly that. He figured out a way to open up the capitalist market in China, under the blessing and at the pleasure of the CCP.

So the Dengist model creates this thing where you have capitalist-like innovation (people rae striving and working to get rich), but it operates within this oppressive, communist-structured system. You have a new thing that is a synthesis of communism and corporatism, because all the corporations are colluding and at the pleasure of the CCP, and are centrally-planned by the CCP. A communo-fascist fusion, that Klaus Schwab calls a public-private partnership, which is going to manage the new circular economy, which will be rooted in the new sustainability.

The idea is, Marcuse is saying we can actually achieve this. We can get to the liberated, communist system that we actually want. We can get away from all the stupidity, the failure, the losers and the injustice of the capitalist world order, of the free liberal world order, if we could just accept less, and in the process figure out how to dialectically fuse capitalism (corrupted capitalism - crony capitalism) to socialism, and create a public-private partnership (Dengism), and make it take up an entirely new trajectory, not one of domination and reproduction of domination by getting more/making more/selling power/producing more/buying more. Instead, we could figure out how to have a managed population, with a managed circle economy, that operates on sustainability, where that sustainability produces the least amount of conflict so that it stays stable, which means that it has to the least amount of winners and losers, which means we have to have an equity-based system that's going to be intersectional in its orientation. We're going to constantly think in terms of intersectional power dynamics to figure out how to redistribute, not just material, but also power, privilege, opportunity and access. So that we can end up in an open society situation where everyone can travel, there are no borders, etc. But nobody should want to travel, because that's not sustainable (carbon footprint). Unless you can order great social credit to earn the privilege.

You can put the right/wrong people in charge of reading Herbert Marcuse, understanding what Marcuse understood and then having access to the big players who can be bought into this whole program, and OMG what can you do? You can create Marcuse' world. The irony is that if Marcuse were still alive, he would be horified. He would see the coming to fruition of his exact ideas. He would be giddy with the excitement of thinking it's going to work, but when he thinks sees the cooptation of Disney, sees Goldman Sachs and all these big entities, sees what Blackrock is doing, when he starts to see what's actually playing out, when all these big corporate players who are all members of the WEF. When he saw how it is actually going, he would say capitalism, the will to dominate is capturing it again. The new sensibility, isn't pure. The corporate interests, which always reproduce capitalism, have bought into..

## Wrap-up
What Marcuse is talking about, aside from how horrific it is, and apart from how the intersectional model is just part of a sustainability model. And the sustainability model is the new sensibility that they're trying to destroy the world. Apart from all this:

He talks about the idea of comparing capitalist societies vs the Soviet societies which are backwards, but can be liberated as well - they could get to a perfect communist liberated thing without bureaucracies, and everyone is happy and has freedom. The problem and is necessary is that the superpowers need to be weakened from within in order to achieve liberation. To get people to be willing.

A mass crisis, once the superpowers are weakened, is the main gateway.

## Final Summary
The idea in the essay on liberation is that, for communism to work ()