Freud and Marxism.
- This topic has 137 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote: “Perhaps we’ve already been over this, when LBird used to visit?”
I still do visit, from time to time.
Relating to this thread, I’m right behind Bijou Drain’s position.
Furthermore, Popper has been demolished by Feyerabend, Lakatos and many others, who’ve I’ve quoted many times.
And just to keep you happy, DJP, I’ll finish by reiterating that ‘materialism’ is an 18th century throwback, overthrown by Marx’s social theory and practice (idealism-materialism, in your terms), which ensures that any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.
Or, indeed, the SPGB.
‘Scientific Truth’ should be a democratic construct, and can, as Marx said, ‘change’.
Say Candy Man and up the fucker pops. Good to see you my old mate, and for once we are on the same side. I’m having a couple of ales at the moment, so my contributions would be quesiotnable, but it is nice to see that my feathered guardian angel/serpent is watching over me.
“any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.
Or, indeed, the SPGB.’.
Or, indeed, L Bird. Since you have no democratic mandate for this assertion, this is another ejaculation from a self-appointed elite.
LBird – I’m a big fan of Feyerabend so I would be interested in what he has to say about Popper’s Falsifiability theory.
BD – It has just occurred to me that your contention that the very narrow class and cultural basis for Freud’s theories, in terms of his patients, were the very class of Austrian culture who were such rabid supporters of Hitler.Lew wrote:
“LBird wrote:
“any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.Or, indeed, the SPGB.’.
Or, indeed, L Bird. Since you have no democratic mandate for this assertion, this is another ejaculation from a self-appointed elite.”
You’re making a strange argument, Lew, that a demand for democracy is somehow not democratic.
It’d make more sense for you to refute my argument for ‘democratic science’ with an outline of who you think should be in control of any ‘science’ within a democratic socialist society.
For example, you could argue in favour of individual ‘experts’, or of an organised ‘elite’, or that ‘science’ is ‘non-political’, or you could even argue that within socialism, there won’t be any democracy.
Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’, and given his democratic belief that only the proletariat could create their own ‘socialism’, that a ‘revolutionary science’ would be democratically control.
Of course, perhaps you disagree with Marx, and have a different view of ‘science’ – if this is the case, please outline your own position.
Wez wrote: “LBird – I’m a big fan of Feyerabend so I would be interested in what he has to say about Popper’s Falsifiability theory.”
Preface, and rest of text of book:
Hope this helps.
Back to Popper!
- lBird. “Furthermore, Popper has been demolished by Feyerabend, Lakatos and many others, who’ve I’ve quoted many times.”
lBird kicks an own goal.
lBird reads what he wants into his recommendation: Gunnar Andersson’s “Criticism of the History of Science”.
If he actually understood the book, he might have discovered its reactionary defence of anti-Marx “philosopher” Karl Popper’s falsificationism against the attacks on it by “Feyerabend, Lakatos and many others, who [lBird] has quoted many times.”
But instead lBird confidently commends to us ignorant socialists an academic proof that Karl Popper demolished “Feyerabend, Lakatos and many others, who [lBird] has quoted many times.”
Tragic!
BD – You asked me for evidence to support my statement that: “The child’s relationship with its parents is paradoxical from the start.”
I’ve just encountered a mother shouting at her child to ‘behave himself’ and I suspect this scenario is repeated millions of times up and down the country during the summer school holidays. The dysfunctional nuclear family is an arena for this unending power struggle between parent and child. This doesn’t exclude the presence of love but many parents seem to see their children as their ‘property’ which gives them the right to enforce their values on them. Indeed many will do this in the name of ‘love’ hence my description of the relationship being paradoxical and contradictory.L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’In the past I have drawn attention to Bird’s inability to cite evidence. Here yet again he is using quotation marks to suggest he is quoting Marx.
Science is often revolutionary, but not in the way Bird thinks. Marx never argued for a revolutionary science. That would be as pointless as many of Bird’s posts which clog up this forum.
Hi Wez,
So you have observed one mother shout at one child and have developed a conclusion that covers the nature of relationships between children and their parents, especially during their summer school holidays. Further deciding that there is universality in the dysfunctional nuclear family, an “unending power struggle between parent and child” and that parents see their children as their ‘property’ which gives them the right to enforce their values on them.
Well, no one could say you’re not a sincere Freudian, you’ve certainly taken his methodology, of creating meta theories from tiny anecdotes to your bosom! Or could it be just the sound of straws being clutched?
I would compare the universalist approach you suggest, i.e. that all children and their parents are in a paradoxical and conflicted relationship with their parents, (I’ll ignore at this time the idea that this is predicated by the crazy idea that this is driven by the sexual fantasies of the child!!!) and that this will lead to a predictable series of staged conflicts, including that boy children all worry that they will be emasculated, all children will find the passing of faeces erogenous, etc., etc. with the basic proposition of Attachment Theory.
This theory puts forward that the styles of parenting vary and that the more cooperative, nurturing and available the parent is, the more likely that the child will develop a trusting, secure and enduring attachment and that that children who experience a lack of nurture, support and consistent care, will develop less secure attachments and are more likely to develop issues such as Mental Health problems, etc.
You may have noted that I have used the terms more likely, rather than will develop, as this theoretical approach is much more nuanced and less deterministic than the Freudian approach.
This theory has predicted that differences in terms of cognition, vocabulary, physical growth, emotional regulation, planning, interpersonal relationships, etc. based on attachment theory. The rigorous testing of these predictions over many years has provided huge support for these predictions.
This theory has also been supported by over 60 years of substantial data collected across many Parts of the world. Not only that, more recent developments involving CT scans, MRI scans, analysis of neuro transmitters such as serotonin and cortisol also provide support for Attachment Theory.
Perhaps reading Jeremy Holmes excellent introductory book “Holmes J (1993). John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. Makers of modern psychotherapy. London; New York: Routledge” might help you make an informed decision about which theory makes sense to you.
Who knows, L Bird might even arrange a vote about it.
Bijou Drains wrote:
“Who knows, L Bird might even arrange a vote about it.”
Nah, not on this site, mate.
They’re all politically, philosophically, ideologically and methodologically, opposed to democracy!Lew wrote:
.
“L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’In the past I have drawn attention to Bird’s inability to cite evidence. Here yet again he is using quotation marks to suggest he is quoting Marx.”
.
Marx wrote: “From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htm
BD – I think we are making some progress. There are no grounds for dismissing a theory because its originators were Victorian gents and indeed in terms of the origins of the holocaust Freuds work with Austrian petite bourgeois patients can be very helpful. It is also notable that you praise the work of Marx and Darwin for their universality thus admitting that sometimes one size does, in fact, fit all. I think it self evident, especially to parents, that the child/parent relationship can often be a battle ground (especially in a capitalist cultural context). Thanks to LBird (and I don’t often get to say that) I have revisited the debate concerning the nature of science and in the absence of any agreed definition I think we can dispense with the criticism of a theory being ‘unscientific’ thus barring it from any serious consideration. Marx is often accused of this heresy but as a dialectical philosophy of cultural evolution its success far eclipses any of the contemporary ‘scientific’ theories that specifically try to refute the class struggle. I notice you still haven’t provided me with any examples of an alternative psychological explanation for the Holocaust and Auschwitz. Perhaps we can turn to Freud’s theory of the unconscious and its role in irrational behaviour?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.