Liberation From The Affluent Society By Herbert Marcuse

On the one hand, non-violent means, specifically dialectics, are considered most effective because they involve the emergence of a new consciousness necessary in a fight against oppression. For a more critical and full understanding of this essay, it is important to first comprehend what is meant by ‘dialectics of liberation.’ The phrase is elaborated by Herbert Marcuse, who participated in the 1967 Congress and argues that ‘all dialectic is liberation’ (1968: 175), because dialogue exposes the contradictions within the repressive system, thus facilitating a re-thinking of social norms and values. In ‘Liberation from the Affluent Society’, the author comments on the fact that the social mechanisms of manipulation, indoctrination, repression
Through dialectics, individuals will become conscious of the servitude they have been subjected to and will strive for qualitatively different values brought on by a re-shaping of the sub- and unconscious, proof of the workings of a free human existence. Indoctrination has ingrained itself into the subconscious of individuals to such extent that their repression will inevitably be carried over into the new system if they do not experience a complete change in their thinking. Marcuse explains the need for new values concisely: ‘Without the emergence of such new needs and satisfactions, the needs and satisfactions of free men, all change in the social institutions, no matter how great, would only replace one system of servitude by another system of servitude’ (1968: 178). Men need to complete re-shape their thinking if they are to have any chance at a complete rupture with the old repressive system. Thus, to prevent individuals from carrying over their repression, a complete awareness of the workings of the old system is needed. A new consciousness will create new needs in line with the new system which must not be superimposed but must come from within each individual. Only then can a completely free society be
Individuals are not to be forced into a new ideology, but are supposed to independently come to the realization that their contemporary society is oppressive and necessitates radical change. As opposed to Valerie Solanas who declares that ‘SCUM is too impatient to wait for the de-brainwashing of millions of assholes’ (1967: #100), Freire insists that for change to take place, revolutionary leaders ought not to convince people of their views, but to simply liberate them. Radical social change will naturally come about as a consequence. The biggest mistake revolutionary leaders can make, according to Freire, is for them to ‘utilize the banking methods as an interim measure, justified on grounds of expediency, with the intention of later behaving in a genuinely revolutionary fashion’ (2005: 86). He considers authentic liberation a process of humanization. Thus, in order for the oppressed to realize their oppression, they must actively participate in their education and in the emergence of their consciousness. For Freire, revolution consists in dialectics, because it is through a process of actively exchanging ideas and views that people become aware of their situation. That is why the author claims that to be