No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
Mr Leiss has taken exception to my contention that Marcuse espouses the doctrine of technological rationality whereas Marx does not. He asserts that a re-examination of the original sources will not support such a classification. Since Mr Leiss does not. provide any sources or reasons to indicate why he disagrees with my assertion that Marx was not an adherent of technological rationality, I shall briefly recapitulate the reasons for my assertion and then pass on to his primary concern, namely, that I failed to support my view that Marcuse believes technological progress towards automation is the embodiment of reason in history.
1 The Civil War in France (Moscow, n.d.), 66–7.
2 One-Dimensional Man (Boston, 1966), 251–2.
3 Ibid., 18.
4 Eros and Civilization (New York, Vintage Books, [1961] 1955), 142.
5 One-Dimensional Man, 231.
6 Ibid., 237.
7 Ibid., 236.
8 Ibid., 44, 251–2; Eros and Civilization, 205–6; An Essay on Liberation (Boston, 1969), 70.
9 The Poverty of Philosophy (Moscow, n.d.), 167.
10 The Chinese and Cuban forms of socialism have been attracting an increasing number of the left, perhaps because these régimes are not as committed to technological rationality as is the Soviet régime. The greater emphasis on human will rather than on machinery as the agent of progress in these populist forms of socialism may be tiring but not tiresome.
11 The Human Condition (New York, 1959), 330–1.
12 Theories of Surplus Value (Moscow, n.d.), 389.
13 Capital, I (Moscow, 1959), 47; cf. p. 186.
14 Ibid., 364–5.