Marcuse and his critics

Abstract

This paper is a defence of Herbert Marcuse’s arguments in his paper ‘Repressive tolerance’, against critics who allege that his argument is authoritarian because he argues for an elitist vanguard and advocates violence and the closing down of debate. I argue that Marcuse does none of those things and, far from being authoritarian, his position is demonstrably anti-authoritarian. I suggest that the critics' arguments don't work because they are based on a hidden agenda—denial of the fact of social domination—an agenda whose exposure also makes sense of the liberalism to which the critics appeal to support their case.