Freud and Marxism.
- This topic has 87 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 4 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ernst’s experience showed him Reich was wrong in thinking cured patients would become socialists. In fact, the opposite often occurred. Feeling better, they lost interest in politics. Unless they were already socialists, of course. Those remained so.
“you’ve just solved one of the greatest mysteries in science”
It wasn’t me. It was Newton. And it works for human life, even if not for galaxies or subatomic particles.
The same cannot be said for Eros, Thanatos and Qi.
There is no force of attraction between masses – Einstein proved this in his theory of general relativity. Why doesn’t it surprise me that you rely on Newton – talk about ‘old school’. Even if there was a ‘force of gravity’ what would it be composed of?? Eros and Thanatos are metaphors within a theory – you might just as well ask what are the emotions composed of.
It may be that gravity is not a force as put forward by Newton, however the existance of gravity is observable and prooveable, just jump out of the window if you want proof. It is also possible to observe that the effects of gravity are consistent across the universe (well with one or two exceptions, which are more about the shortcomings of the theory rather than gravity itself).
All of the “drives” which Freud puts forward as theory are not observable and cannot be consistently observed. You cannot observe these drives anymore than you can observe orgon, chi, heavenly grace or animal magnetism.
Any drive or instinct can only have evolved if it aids reproduction or survival (or at the very least has not hindered those things). If any Freudian believer of Thanatos can successfully explain how a drive or instinct involving killing yourself or destroying yourself can aid survival or reproduction, I’ll happily show my arse in the Party’s front window.
A theory is a description of reality that offers or attempts an explanation of reality’s workings. The problem is not only are what you describe as metaphores wrong teh whole theory is unsustainable.
Freud made some very interesting observations, however his observations were not unique or novel. The role of the unconscious mind had been described centuries before Freud’s birth and Rousseau and Darwin amongst others had developed models of staged child development.
It looks as if you didn’t reach the end of that article on “Quantum Quackery”:
“interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales—especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.”
And of course there will be some movement within the body that corresponds to “emotion” — don’t parts of the brain light up on scanners or something? But I don’t think Eros, Thanatos or Qi cause (or are the result of) anything like that.
You can observe libido as a physical function, just as you can observe anger, frustration, grief, and other bio-chemical actions of the nervous system.
BD – My point being that Newtonian ‘force of attraction’ is a metaphor that works perfectly well without there being any ‘physical manifestation’ of it – as ALB was demanding for the life force (Eros). I think you have entirely misunderstood Freud’s theory of the ‘death instinct’ because you ignore the internal dialectic of contradictory instincts within the psyche. I did write about this in an attempt to explain it in some depth and I can send it to you if you wish. As for there being no evidence of the existence of such an instinct I can only point to the dark age that was the 20th century. If someone could explain to me the levels of fear, hatred, sadism, violence and racism that brought about the holocaust and many other terrible political phenomena better than the Marxian synthesis with the theory of the death instinct then let me know. I do not believe that mere ‘false consciousness’ can explain such self destructive behaviour of our species alone.
These things did not bring about the Holocaust, as i am sure you know.
Scapegoating suited the populist Nazi Party for electoral and political success purposes, and the hatred of Jews especially was a Christian inheritance of centuries. Martin Luther’s diatribe against Jews gives Der Sturmer a real run for its money.The psychopathic hatred evinced by those in charge of the herding and killing was all part of the job and those chosen for it were the most psychopathic or banal types.
Even so, complaints against the job inundated Himmler, who had to repeatedly urge the “necessity” of it to the reluctant.Just out of interest, has anyone claimed that a “death instinct” is something that functions in other animals too? If so, what observed behaviours were they using to deduce its existence?
I don’t know about “death instinct”, which sounds ridiculous to me. But reichians say that neuroses are specific to humans and to other animals in captivity.
Humans being the only animals which have divorced themselves from the free and natural flow of the sex instinct.
Also, animals in captivity show neuroses and also masturbate.
TM – ‘I don’t know about “death instinct”, which sounds ridiculous to me.’
A curious statement by someone who admits he’s ignorant of Freud’s later work. You should really read up on something before passing judgement. Presumably, like the rest of us, there are lots of things that ‘sounded ridiculous’ to you before you did a bit of research?
DJP- I’m no expert on animal behaviour, as TM will tell you, but don’t many animals seek out a quiet place to die when life becomes unsupportable?
If someone could explain to me the levels of fear, hatred, sadism, violence and racism that brought about the holocaust and many other terrible political phenomena better than the Marxian synthesis with the theory of the death instinct then let me know.
Can you explain what extra explanatory power adding an ahistorical “death instinct” adds to explanations of these events?
If the “death instinct” is something that is always there, how does invoking it help explain the unique history of the 20th century?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.