The circumstances leading to this interview are as follows:

            The Extension Department of the University of California, San Diego, invited Dr. Fred Schwarz to participate in a course entitled, “Conservative and Traditional Views on Contemporary Issues.”  He was invited to lecture on April 2, 1970, on the subject, “A Rebuttal to the Left—The Continuing Communist Threat.”

            Dr. Marcuse sent a letter to Dr. Martin N. Chamberlain, Director of the University Extension, strongly protesting against the University sponsorship of Dr. Fred Schwarz as one of the lecturers in this series.  He depicted Dr. Schwarz as a “hate monger and rabble rouser of apparently hysterical stature” and stated that he considered his appearance in a university course “an insult to the intelligence of any serious audience, a mockery of genuine education, and a mockery of conservative thought.”  This letter was published in the Triton Times, the student newspaper of the University of California, San Diego, on March 13, 1970, and was republished in the newsletter of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, April 1, 1970.

            Harold Keen interviewed Dr. Schwarz on Station KFMB, Channel 8, on Thursday, March 18, 1970, and questioned him about the charges made by Dr. Marcuse.  A tape recording of this interview is available from the Crusade.

            Dr. Marcuse appeared on Channel 8, April 1, and discussed some of the statements Dr. Schwarz had made concerning him and his message.  The verbatim transcript of this interview follows.  Interspersed between the statements of Herbert Marcuse, there are extracts from his books and comments by Dr. Schwarz.

            Introduction By Harold Keen:  Tomorrow an important milestone at UCSD: the start of a 10-week course on Conservative and Traditional Views with Dr. Fred Schwarz, controversial head of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade as the first speaker.  Recently we interviewed Dr. Schwarz.  Tonight Encounter presents equally controversial Dr. Herbert Marcuse, UCSD’s internationally known Marxist Philosophy Professor who has protested Dr. Schwarz’s appearance tomorrow.

            Keen: Dr. Marcuse, in protesting Dr. Fred Schwarz’s appearance on the campus Thursday, isn’t this a denial of his right of freedom of speech such as you yourself enjoy at UCSD?

            Marcuse:  It is not at all a denial of freedom of speech.  I never protested Dr. Schwarz’s appearance on campus.  I would never have protested his speaking at the free speech area on the plaza of Revelle college or for that matter at any other location.  I protested exclusively against the University sponsorship of his appearance in an accredited course.  It seems to me there’s an essential difference between freedom of speech and academic freedom, and I do not believe that the principles of academic freedom can apply to Dr. Schwarz.

            Keen:  Why not?

            Marcuse:  Because the principles of academic freedom presuppose certain qualifications.  In the broadest sense, a knowledge of the facts and the ability or willingness to analyze these facts as objectively as possible.  I think I can show that this is not the case, at least I have no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Schwarz has these qualifications.

            Keen:  Well, you claim then that he doesn’t have the academic qualifications that earn the right to lecture at UCSD for credit although you would be wiling to allow him to speak generally to the student body.

            Marcuse:  I certainly would.

            Keen:  Now on what grounds do you claim he doesn’t have these academic qualifications?

            Marcuse:  Well, let me give you only, and I think it is fair, examples from his recent interview with you.  He, Dr. Schwarz, says that I reportedly was a member of the Spartacus League in 1917.

            Keen:  Which he described as a fanatical young groups of communists in Germany similar to the today’s Weatherman section of the Students for a Democratic Society?

            Marcuse:  I never was a member of the Spartacus League.  Maybe I should apologize for it.  I was a member at that time of the rather conservative Social Democratic Party which was violently anticommunist.  The Spartacus League had absolutely nothing to do with the Weatherman faction of SDS.  It was an organization rooted in the German working class and it certainly was against any individual terror.

            (I apologize to Dr. Marcuse for having stated that he was a sparticist in 1918.  The source of my information was a pamphlet entitled “Marcuse,” published by the Australian Communist Party.  In the introduction, it states categorically, “In 1918 he was a sparticist.”  I resolve to check my sources even more carefully in the future.  Ideally, an individual should be judged by what he writes and says.  Statements made by opponents should be accepted with reservations while those made by friends should also be questioned.)

            Keen:  Now what else in his interview with me do you challenge?

            Marcuse:  Well, for example, he says that I envisage after the revolution, and I quote, I think literally, “an authoritarian bureaucratic organization of the productive forces.”  The fact is that I have consistently criticized the Stalinist construction of socialism and the construction of socialism in the Soviet satellites as an authoritarian bureaucratic organization which I consider incompatible with authentic socialism.  Let me give you another example: he says that I envisage the Communist Party as authority after the revolution.  I have equally consistently criticized the Communist Party as repressive of any genuine development towards socialism.

            (Here Marcuse denies his own words.  At the conclusion of his book “An Essay on Liberation,” he discusses the kind of life which is to follow a successful revolution.  He gives particular attention to the role of anarchy and anarchists in the revolutionary processes and in the post revolutionary situation.  He states:

            “The anarchic element is an essential factor in the struggle against domination: preserved but disciplined in the preparatory political action, it will be freed and aufgehoben in the goals of the struggle.  Released for the construction of the initial revolutionary institutions, the antirepressive sensibility, allergic to domination, would militate against the prolongation of the ‘First Phase,’ that is the Authoritarian Bureaucratic Development of the Productive Forces.”  Page 89.  N.B.  Aufgehoben is a German term which means fulfilled and negated.

            The phrase “authoritarian bureaucratic development of the productive forces” reads like an academic synonym for the Marxist-Leninist Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  I ask Marcuse, “What authority will appoint the bureaucrats during this First Phase?”)

            Keen:  Now you have also been quoted as saying that self-indulgence should be mobilized for political purposes like sexual license, general rebelliousness of youth, absurdity, and obscenity.

            Marcuse:  Well, I must tell you I find it funny, and I just don’t see how self-indulgence can in any imaginative way be political.  It seems to me that the two are contradictory to each other.  I did point out that a sexual revolution as it prevails among the youth is and cannot be in itself a revolutionary force, and that unless the individual protest becomes political protest, it remains simply a private escape.

            (In his Political Preface, 1966, to “Eros and Civilization” Marcuse writes:

            “It was the thesis of ‘Eros and Civilization,’ more fully developed in my ‘One Dimensional Man,’ that man could avoid the fate of a Welfare-Through-Warfare State only by achieving a new starting point where he could reconstruct the productive apparatus without that ‘innerworldly asceticism’ which provided the mental basis for domination and exploration. . .’  ‘Polymorphous sexuality’ was the term which I used to indicate that the new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to activate repressed or arrested organic, biological needs: to make the human body an Instrument of Pleasure Rather than Labor.”  Pages XIV and XV.

            He further expounds this theme in “Eros and Civilization” where he states:

            “No longer used as a fulltime instrument of labor, the body would be resexualized.  The regression involved in this spread of the libido would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones, and, consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy.  The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure.  This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”  Page 201.

            Marcuse teaches that the revolution must start with this “polymorphous sexuality,” but he emphasizes that it must develop a political program if it is to be successful.  He is critical of the hippies who merely drop out of society, and commends the yippies who try to enlist the hippies into political programs to destroy society.)

            Keen:  Such as the present Women’s Liberation Movement for instance?

            Marcuse:  Women’s Liberation Movement?  I can even give you a better example from among my own students.  The development of the San Diego commune is to me a typical case where a rebellion, which began on the private personal level, has been transformed into political action.  Now you may not like this political action, but in any case it is certainly something very different from self-indulgence as he says as mobilization of the body—I don’t know what.

            Keen:  The typical “Marcusian” was described by Dr. Schwarz as “Yippies” such as Abby Hoffman or Jerry Rubin, two of the “Chicago 7.”  Is that correct?

            Marcuse:  I don’t feel qualified to say what the typical Marcusian can possibly mean.  Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin—well, I don’t know.  I think one of them certainly doesn’t like me.  I like both of them, and there again I think it is a case where you can refute what he says.  I mean, these kids risk years of their life in jail for a political cause.  It certainly cannot be called self-indulgence or simply interest in sexual revolution or whatever.

            (Marcuse’s commendation of Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin is revealing.  These yippies advocate widespread drug use, refusal to work, theft, and the destruction of the family.  In his book entitled “Revolution for the Hell of it,” Dial Press Inc., N. Y., Abby Hoffman refers to a 13-year-old girl who has run away from home and is living in misery as a panhandler on the streets.  He states:

            “Runaways are the backbone of the youth revolution.  We are all runaways, age is irrelevant.  A fifteen-year-old kid who takes off from the middle-class American life is an escaped slave crossing the Mason-Dixon line.  They are hunted down by professional bounty hunters, fidgety relatives and the law, because it is against the law to leave home (translate: bondage) until you have finished your servitude. . . . with the runaway figure for the United States up 18 percent from a year ago, it looks like its future is assured.”  Page 74.)

            Keen:  There is an impression from your well-known essay “Repressive Tolerance” that you oppose freedom of speech for anyone who is against your views or anyone who is opposed to socialism and only those who are for communism or socialism should have outright freedom of speech and assembly.

            Marcuse:  Well, I think I could put a rather high reward on anyone who could shoe me that I said or wrote or implied that anyone who was opposed to socialism or communism should be prevented from speaking.  In my essay on “Repressive Tolerance,” I have clearly confined the notion of a withdrawal of tolerance to demonstrably destructive and aggressive movements.  This means, for example, that the vast majority of liberal and conservative thought in this country, certainly would be and should be entitled to toleration.

            Keen:  Could you give examples of what forces you believe should not be allowed freedom of speech or assembly?

            Marcuse:  Yes, for example, a Nazi Party, any party or organized group coming out and propagating racism, anti-Semitism, the escalation of the war, the prolongation of the war, and so on.

            Keen:  Now, in our society, today, we permit these groups freedom of speech.

            Marcuse:  That’s right.  I think it’s a mistake; as I think back of Weimar Germany, as I always say if at that time the Hitler Party would have been prohibited, we may have been spared a second World War and the extermination of 6 million Jews.

            Keen:  Should these antisocial views, those you consider antisocial views, be physically stopped?

            Marcuse:  I have nowhere said that they should be physically stopped.  They should be stopped exactly the way they are being stopped now, namely by the decision of the courts.

            (In his essay “Repressive Tolerance,” Marcuse writes:

            “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left. . .it would extend to the state of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.” Page 109

            He also advocates:

            “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or WHICH OPPOSE THE EXTENTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICAL CARE, etc.  Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior.”  Pages 100-101.

            Will Marcuse pay the ‘high reward” he mentions?)

            Keen:  Would you encourage heckling or disruption of such speakers as Dr. Schwarz?

            Marcuse:  I have in my long experience found out that heckling is spontaneous and the business of the students.  I wouldn’t think of organizing heckling, and I don’t think it has even been necessary.

            Keen:  Are you in agreement with the general view of communists in the U.S. and abroad?

            Marcuse:  I am not.  I already mentioned that I have for years criticized communist policy.  I may add here that to my knowledge, the communist countries today are the only countries in the world where my books are not published, and they probably know why.

            (Marcuse has commended the actions of the communist dictatorships in Cuba, China, and North Vietnam.  He has been critical of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union but blames it on the necessity to coexist with the capitalist United States.)

            Keen:  Summarizing as a Marxist, Dr. Marcuse, are you against the presentation of conservative views at UCSD, a campus that many people in this community believe is already too liberal?

            Marcuse:  I am most certainly not against it.  In fact I would favor a read and good course on conservative and traditional thought.

            Keen:  Would you debate a conservative scholar, having already refused to debate Dr. Schwarz?

            Marcuse:  I would certainly debate a conservative scholar of whom I can assume that he knows the facts and is willing to analyze and evaluate the facts as objectively as possible.  I would be very glad to do so.

            Keen:  Your contract as UCSD expires this June.  What are your plans after that?

            Marcuse:  I have no plans.  I like it very much here, and, if I can, I would like to stay in La Jolla.  I definitely will stop teaching at UCSD, and I must say I am rather happy that the taxpayer is at least relieved of this role.”

ANTI-RED LEADER HITS ‘MARCUSIANS’

“The San Diego Union, Friday, April 3, 1970

            “The ‘Marcusians’ – followers of UCSD Professor Hebert Marcuse – are one of three groups that are ‘flatly out to destroy the American system,’ a world anti-Communist leader said here last night.

            “‘The Marcusians, the anarchists and the Communists – with about 30,000 hard-core members altogether – are at the heart of forces threatening this country,’ Australian Dr. Fred Schwarz of the Christian Anti-Communist League told a seminar in La Jolla.

            “With 200 students milling outside the Scripps auditorium, Schwarz opened the first session of a UCSD extension course, ‘Conservative and Traditional Views on Contemporary Issues.’

“Crowd Jams Door

            “The audience included students from local activist groups, followers of Marcuse, civil leaders and political science teachers.  There was little disturbance other than the crown of students who jammed the door of the auditorium and tried to gate crash the first seminar session.

            “A compromise was reached by which representatives of the students groups were given empty seats in the small auditorium.  The cost of each seat for the students – about $4 – was paid by Dr. Schwarz and the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade.

            “‘The Marcusians and the other three groups are dangerous because they feel the American system is so diseased that it cannot be saved,’ Schwarz said.

            “‘All three want revolution – make no mistake about that.’

“Dangers Cited

            “Schwarz said the Communists want to follow revolution with a dictatorship; the anarchists feel the goodness of human nature will bring a Utopia after revolution and the Marcusians feel there is a question as to what will follow.

            “Schwarz, who dropped his medical practices to lead the anti-Communist crusade, said he feels the 30,000 members of the three core groups are using two million other Americans to work toward destruction.

            “‘I am talking about partisan groups – like black power advocates; alienated groups who are in revolt against authority, “dropouts” and the reformers who are bright people trying to correct inequities,’ Schwarz said.

            “People like these are being used, Schwarz said.

“Marcuse Followers

            “The followers of Marcuse, Schwarz said, are out to destroy by negation.

            “Schwarz cited the destruction of the family unit and encouragement of self-indulgence on the part of Americans as two basics he feels ‘are important parts of Marcuse’s philosophy.’

            “ ‘This is destruction from within using sex and individual ego,’ Schwarz told the seminar.

            “The leader quoted heavily from Marcuse’s works during the discussion and, several times, discussed radical publications as ‘good sources for the study of communism and other forces out to destroy America.’

“Man’s Best Hope

            “‘Any system can be criticized,’ Schwarz said.  ‘But I think America is still man’s best hope of freedom.’

            “The Australian leader came outside several times to meet and shake hands with the students milling in front of the auditorium.

            “Students there were most critical of what they called ‘the selective nature of the seminar.’

            “‘We cannot afford the $35 enrollment fee for this course of seminars,’ one students said. ‘It is wrong to bring a controversial world speaker here and limit him to this seminar.’

            “Schwarz said he would return to speak just to student groups ‘anytime I am invited.’”

JERRY RUBIN SPEAKS

            Jerry Rubin, yippie leader and darling of Herbert Marcuse, and one of the Chicago 7 who was convicted of crossing state lines to promote violence, boasts that his objective is to destroy the United States.  One of his speeches has been published by the Community for Awareness and Social Education (C.A.S.E.).  C.A.S.E. is located in the Student Union Building at U.C.L.A. and is financed by the Ford Foundation.  It is student initiated and student directed.  Extracts from the speech of Jerry Rubin are as follows:

            “I support everything which puts people into motion, which creates disruption and controversy, which creates chaos and rebirth.

            “Adlai Stevenson made me a radical in 1952 by picking up my hopes for change.  The system crushed those hopes.

            “Eugene McCarthy is training the future street disrupters of tomorrow in the futility of party politics.

            “The revolution is taking place everywhere.

            “The stable middle-class home is falling apart.

            “The church cannot attract its own children.

            “The schools are becoming centers of rebellion, and the streets are theaters of political action.

            “I approve of letters to the editor, peace candidates and peace referendums, peaceful marches, symbolic sit-ins, disruptive sit-ins, disruptive street demonstration and sabotage.

            “That is guerrilla war in America: everyone doing his own thing, a symphony of varied styles, rebellion for every member of the family, each to his own alienation.

            “The respectable middle-class debates LBJ while we try to pull down his pants.

            “A good question: can America be changed through ‘peaceful transition?’

            “Can the beast be tamed within her own rules and laws? within the electoral system, within law and order, within police permits and regulations, within the boundaries of middle-class America?

            “Can a society which makes distinctions between rich and poor, white and black, employers and employees, landlords and tenants, teachers and students, reform itself?  Is it interested in reform, or is it just interested in eliminating nuisances?

            “What’s needed is a new generation of nuisances, a new generation of people who are freaky, crazy, irrational, sexy, angry, irreligious, childish, and mad.

            “people who burn draft cards

            “people who burn dollar bills

            “people who burn MB and doctoral degrees

            “people who say: ‘To hell with your goals’

            “people who lure the youth with music, pot and LSD

            “people who proudly carry Vietcong flags

            “people who re-define reality, who re-define the norm

            “people who wear funny costumes

            “people who see property as theft

            “people who say ‘f---’ on television

            “people who break with the status-role-title-consumer game

            “people who have nothing material to lose but their bodies

            “The war in Vietnam will be stopped by the United States when the embarrassment of carrying on the war becomes greater than the embarrassment of admitting defeat.

            “Youth alienation, campus demonstrations and disruptions, peace candidates, underground railroads of draft dodgers to Canada, trips to banned countries, thousands of people giving the middle finger to the Pentagon over national television—

            “We can end this war—we’ve got America on the run.  We’ve combined youth, music, sex, drugs, and rebellion with treason—and that’s a combination hard to beat. . .

            “We want a communal world where the imagination runs supreme, and where human institutions respond to human needs.  Feeling and emotion will be unsuppressed.  Everyone will be free.  People will go to museums to look at dollar bills.  There will be no nations, only rich communities and rich cultures.

            “When the movement moved into the streets, and began to act in the dialect of power, when the movement got tough, we broke away all those barriers preventing us from reaching the average guy.  America understand Stokely Carmichael and America understands peace demonstrators fighting in the streets, and that’s why we are much more dangerous than a hundred Martin Luther Kings.

            “Scenario One:

            The time: spring 1968  The place:  New York City

            The city is thrown into a psychological paralysis by the plans of 50,000 peace demonstrators to close down Manhattan by disrupting the 50 most crowded traffic thoroughfares at peak working hours.

            “Scenario Two:

            The time: late August, 1968  The place: Chicago

            Chicago is in panic.  The American Youth Festival (Youth International Party) has brought 500,000 young people to Chicago to camp out, smoke pot, dance to wild music, burn draft cards, and roar like wild bands through the streets, forcing the President to bring troops back from Vietnam in order to keep order in the city while he is renominated under the protection of tear gas and bayonets.

            “Scenario Three:

            The time: sometime in the future  The place: America

            The government sends more troops to the spreading fires of guerrilla war throughout Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, while strikes and guerrilla action continue to mount in India, Indonesia, the Congo and Brazil.

            At home Chicago, Watts, Oakland and Harlem are burning, and the people there have poured into the streets taking the goods they claim are rightfully theirs and broadcasting that all white businesses and buildings now belong to the black community.

            Law and order seem to have completely broken down.

            One hundred colleges have been hit by students strikes, and hundreds of thousands of young white people are jamming the downtown areas of many big cities, paralyzing traffic.

            Some young white and black teenagers broke into studios of the major TV networks and are now broadcasting to the nation.  They are demanding the withdrawal of all American troops from around the world, the immediate distribution of food and clothing free, the immediate conversion of all areas of the economy to serve the people’s needs free, and the replacement of the police by a people’s militia.

            The authority of the government of the United States is in grave danger.”

His final statement is beyond dispute.