Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TM – Yes Freud had abandoned his old ‘libido’ theory (to which ALB always refers) in favour of a thoroughly psychological one containing the rival forces of ‘Eros’ (the life force) and ‘Thanatos’ (the death instinct). I find his mature work more interesting than his earlier more ‘mechanical’ theories.
ALB quotes Feud saying: ‘One of the passages from Freud that was read on the programme was that humans are born with “the instincts to destroy and kill, which we assimilate as the aggressive or destructive instincts”. By “we” he meant “psychoanalysts” and which rules out as completely utopian a free society without a repressive state.’
Freud had no political understanding whatsoever which is why his theories need the addition of a Marxian perspective. Marx’s theory of alienation has profound psychological implications which can be, and have been, explored by those using psychoanalytical techniques. We do not reject Darwin’s work because he was a Christian so let’s give Freud some slack for being a Viennese petty bourgeois. My contention, along with that of the Frankfurt school, is that Freud’s ‘death instinct’ has its roots in the alienation created by capitalism.
DJP – I understand why you reject my more ‘populist’ ideas but if we go your route aren’t we in danger of ‘preaching to the converted’ and attracting just the educated minority who are interested in political theory? Your contention that a music content would be ‘trite cliche’ would seem to exclude one of the most powerful vehicles of communication available to our species. Have you seen the massive audiences at rock concerts etc.? And what does ‘talk about socialism’ mean – politics is a part of everyday lives and we need to link ordinary experiences with socialist consciousness and I don’t think an endless list of intellectual lectures as on MHI is attractive to the ‘average worker’. Anyway this is just my perspective and you might be correct but perhaps we might attempt a ‘synthesis’ of our different approaches?
DJP – That looks good – and we have quite a large archive of debates etc. that we could post. However the MHI website does look a bit ‘dry’ so perhaps we could add some ‘rebel music’ with a DJ and some more eye catching graphics? I’m not a big fan of ‘phone-ins’ but they do seem to attract audiences. We could provide movie and music reviews etc.
Almamater – I always wanted to try and set up a radio station so that we could respond to events as they happen. The cost is minimal (I believe although I don’t know the cost of licenses etc. these days) to set up an online broadcast. I was told that we don’t have the personnel but if any comrades are interested in such a project let me know as I have some broadcasting experience and these days we can all broadcast from home.
BD – I notice that you haven’t answered my question – what have all of your establishment experts got to say about the relationship between political ideology and psychological development/character? At least the synthesis of the work of Freud and Marx has given us a working hypothesis as used by the Frankfurt school. Or do you think, like ALB, that the atavistic hatred and cruelty witnessed by recent history was merely a matter of ‘false consciousness’?
TM – I think you’re putting to much store in the ability of both sides to control events. I don’t know that Putin is any kind of military genius so his tribal bourgeois instincts will direct his actions as they will that of NATO (a.k.a. US oligarchs).
BD – Do you use a psychological analysis to understand the majority’s rejection of socialism and the embrace of tribalism (nationalism, fascism etc.)? Do the thinkers you refer to attempt to understand the psychology of political ideologies? If they do please give me some links.
TM – ‘What is the logic of Russian rearmament in the modern world and of Putin expanding militarisation?’
From his bourgeois perspective imperialism is always ‘logical’. What is not rational or logical is the working class doing the killing and dying on behalf of that class.
BD – ‘ The basic elements of Freud’s work, his model of the mind, his view of psychosexual development is demonstrably wrong.’
Would you disagree with Freud’s contention that the unconscious mind has a vital role in character formation and that irrational behaviour has its roots in the repressions that stalk the unconscious? In contrast to you I believe those foundational elements are demonstrably correct. As with history, politics, economics and philosophy I am comforted that my/our non mainstream perspective is rejected by the related ‘establishments’ of those disciplines. That the psychological establishment rejects Freud’s theories enhances my interest in them.
Like TM I am surprised that we find ourselves on the same side on this one. I couldn’t agree more with what he’s said on this subject. Nobody is suggesting that Freud or Marcuse were correct in everything they said any more than Marx was. We do not reject Marxian historical Materialism because he supported Polish independence. Clearly support for authoritarian social structures is irrational and on the rise amongst the masses and psychoanalysis at least attempts to find reasons for this. ALB’s contention that ‘Nationalism/Fascism is merely an example of false consciousness does not even begin to explain the fanatical hatred and sadism of the Holocaust etc.
There has always been a tradition in the Party of rationalizing all social phenomena except the irrational.
BD wrote: ‘ Even if it was correct (but it isn’t) the whole approach is based on the late Victorian upper middle class social structure which was a small part of societal structure for a small window in history.’
Er, couldn’t the same be said of Marx? I think any critical assessment must be made of the work itself rather than (however interesting) any deconstruction of the historical context from which it arose. Are we to dismiss the work of Darwin because he was a middle class white Victorian gent?
Almamater is always banging on about the incompatibility he sees between the Marxian analysis and psychology (specifically the Freudian perspective). I don’t think that Marx would have had any of it and that he would readily embrace psychology as another advance in human knowledge that could help the cause. This is the danger of an ideological ‘Marxism’ rather than the ‘Marxian’ approach that the man himself undertook. A Marxian analysis does not seek the exclusion of new ideas because they are considered ‘unMarxist’ but seeks to incorporate and understand them dialectically. It is the rigid ideological ‘Marxism’ of many that has failed – you only have to read the article link provided by Almamater above to see the irrational bourgeois obsession with ‘leadership’ to realize that a psychological analysis of the need for authoritarian social structures is essential.
