I've just come across this an article by Robert C. Scharff on Andrew Feenberg's Heidegger and Marcuse in an online journal Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. It takes me back to the time when I struggled through reading Marcuse on Heidegger without having read Heidegger. I was lost but somehow the attempt to enrich Marxism with a better take on human existence appealed. But it seemed to go nowhere.

Scharff says that the Heidegger known to Marcuse is not just the Heidegger of Being and Time, but the Heidegger who had already been a very creative appropriator of Aristotle for close to a decade. Others have stressed Heidegger's working out his notion of being-in-the-world as care in light of an interpretation of phronesis, and early commentators follow Gadamer in focusing on this.

Feenberg points out, however, that the ontological significance of Aristotle's notion of techné as a kind of production (poiesis) is also crucial to Heidegger, and not just in his later thinking specifically about technology. Citing the famous "Aristotle-Introduction" of 1922, of which Marcuse had a transcript, Feenberg stresses the fact that when Heidegger raises the question about the being of human being, he turns to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, not to the physical or metaphysical works. And if we look in the Ethics for Aristotle's basic sense of human being---i.e., "'being in life' as [directly] experienced and interpreted"---we see that he understands human beings, not primarily as a kind of object placed in a world full of various kinds of theoretically knowable objects, but as an entity that produces, makes, and uses things... Here we find the roots of Heidegger's phenomenology of human existence, and---in spite of the standard story and Marcuse's own later denials--two features of this phenomenology left a permanent mark on Marcuse's thinking. For him, after Heidegger, we can take as established the ontological priority of practical and productive life; and given that priority, we can begin to transform Heidegger's own hopelessly abstract and ultimately unsuccessful efforts to critically confront the currently inauthentic condition of this life--by turning his notion of authenticity into the Marxist-inspired idea of a "free appropriation of the human essence in a socially concrete form through the liberation of labor".