As an almost soixante-huitard, I predict that the Occupy Wall Street crowd will soon rediscover Herbert Marcuse and return him to guruhood. His 1968 postscript to his
1965 essay on "repressive tolerance" will no doubt be the first to return to vogue.
UNDER the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent. The progressive historical force of tolerance lies in its extension to those modes and forms of dissent which are not committed to the status quo of society, and not confined to the institutional framework of the established society. Consequently, the idea of tolerance implies the necessity, for the dissenting group or individuals, to become illegitimate if and when the established legitimacy prevents and counteracts the development of dissent. This would be the case not only in a totalitarian society, under a dictatorship, in one-party states, but also in a democracy (representative, parliamentary, or 'direct') where the majority does not result from the development of independent thought and opinion but rather from the monopolistic or oligopolistic administration of public opinion, without terror and (normally) without censorship. In such cases, the majority is self-perpetuating while perpetuating the vested interests which made it a majority. In its very structure this majority is 'closed', petrified; it repels a priori any change other than changes within the system. But this means that the majority is no longer justified in claiming the democratic title of the best guardian of the common interest. And such a majority is all but the opposite of Rousseau's 'general will': it is composed, not of individuals who, in their political functions, have made effective 'abstraction' from their private interests, but, on the contrary, of individuals who have effectively identified their private. interests with their political functions. And the representatives of this majority, in ascertaining and executing its will, ascertain and execute the will of the vested interests, which have formed the majority. The ideology of democracy hides its lack of substance.
Hard to believe, but as a student I actually had to read such stuff. I suppose I am now myself a cog in the machine upholding the "monopolistic or oligopolistic administration of public opinion".
UPDATE:
An email arrives from my friend the Wall Street lawyer:
You’d think to be taken seriously they would at least loot or destroy something. For historical reference, I think it was Abbie Hoffman who caused a riot on the floor of the NYSE back in the ‘60’s by dumping a basket of dollar bills from the visitors’ gallery. Of course, this is not possible with today’s security, and if you want to throw away money on the exchange you have to do it the old fashioned way (investing in shares).
Lexington @
'The Economist'
