Freud and Marxism.
- This topic has 137 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How would Freud’s theory of the unconscious give you a causal explanation of the Holocaust?
Surely what needs to be explained is why it happened when it did, and why its victims were who they were. I don’t think any a-historical explanation is going to get you very far in that.
Wez wrote: “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…”
.
Your thanks duly noted.I’ve certain tried for years to promote a “debate concerning the nature of science”, especially about its contemporary ‘elite’ nature, and the requirement for a democratic input to any ‘revolutionary science’ that Marx argued for, but, as you say, there is still an “absence of any agreed definition”, not just amongst ‘scientists’ themselves, but also amongst supposedly ‘democratic socialists’.
I think that this debate would require some clarification prior to evaluating Freud’s theories.
“L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’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
This is from The Poverty of Philosophy and Marx is arguing that science can be revolutionary. That is uncontroversial. It does not need to be made revolutionary, nor does Marx argue for a ‘revolutionary science’. That phrase is made up by you.
- lBird. “I haven’t ‘recommended’ anything. I’ve merely assumed that … can read critically.”
When, lBird, have you ever assumed a socialist member could “read critically” except, conveniently, now when you’ve been put on the spot.
Your “helpful” 161 page defence of Popperian falsificationism (Amazon, £96.15!) is easy to understand, if you can tolerate its academicism. Yet, embarrassingly, you misunderstand it.
What hope is there for your democratically mandated universal “Truth” — scientific and aesthetic — if its isolated champion naively undermines his own position?
Well might we squirm at the implication — scientific and aesthetic — of your uninformed/misinformed vote on the mandated universal “Truth” of barely tractable problems like those of the Langlands Project, the Millennium Prize, protein folding, dark energy, ad infinitum, …
No. It is not a “philosophical” matter of us being anti-democratic over the universally mandated “Truth” of science. It is a practical matter of us accepting the implications of a society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the world’s resources.
Contrary to your defended assertions of there being an exploited “working class” in such a society, we hold that no classes are possible — there are no grounds for their existence — in a democratic society so constituted. In such a society we all work collectively and take practical decisions democratically.
But we don’t mandate the impossible — universal “Truth” — enforced by your infamous thought control.
* * *
As to the drivel about there being no scientific method…
That wasn’t Marx’s view. Rather he considered his Capital to be a scientific treatise, just as he likewise designated the works of Smith and Ricardo.
The time is well nigh for confronting Marx’s scientific method — the method of descent and ascent…
* * *
Finally, lBird, you characteristically misunderstand the Marxian quote that you lifted, context free, from marxists.org.
Here is Marx, mid flight, in 1847 talking about a still-unformed/unconscious proletariat in France that he sees as destined in the future to resolve, in practice, the theoretical [surplus value] crisis in bourgeois “political economy”. When the proletariat moves in its class interest it will realize the implications of bourgeois economic science in its revolutionary practice, and make political economy of class society impossible.
Bourgeois political economy in crisis is the science that Marx is here talking about — not science in general. Here’s the wider context…
- Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.
- So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the struggle itself of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of a new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a regenerating science.
- But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece.
- So long as they look for science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society.
- From this moment, [political economy] science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.
Wez Stated “There are no grounds for dismissing a theory because its originators were Victorian gents“. I have never said that there were grounds for dismissing Feud’s work because he was a Victorian Gent at any point. So your point is irrelevant
“indeed in terms of the origins of the holocaust Freud’s work with Austrian petite bourgeois patients can be very helpful”
That is just a statement of opinion, to justify that you need to provide some evidence to show this. To date you have provided none.
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
No I didn’t, I praised the scope and breadth of their investigations. As opposed to the extremely narrow study material that Freud used (a small group of bourgeois children some of whom were very possible victims of child sexual abuse). My criticism is not of universalist theories, but the wild and wacky universalist conclusions Freud made from such a small and clearly culturally and economically biased sample group.
So in the vain hope that you would actually provide a straight answer to a straight question, do you believe that all male children fear emasculation in their early childhoods, do all female children experience penis envy, do all male children fall in love with their mother and wish to kill their father to gain sexual experiences with their mother, and that do all female children experience a similar “libidinal” experience with their fathers? Indeed do you think that through the mouth all infants makes contact with the first object of libido (sexual energy), the mother’s breast?
This is important because you go on to say that:
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).
Which interestingly makes use of pure assertion again (I think it is self evident) and interestingly makes you move your ground from the universalist idea that all childhood relationships are paradoxical to them being often a battleground.
Whilst agreeing that parenting can be difficult and being a child can be difficult and sometimes boundaries are hard to maintain or accept, I find it baffling that a grown up would still consider any theory which uses Greek Mythology to explain this in terms of an ongoing libidinal struggle between children and their parents. As far as I can see you would be just as well served as constructing a theory about child development based on the Lord of the Rings, at least it is a bit more realistic than the guff Freud dreamed up.
“I think we can dispense with the criticism of a theory being ‘unscientific’ thus barring it from any serious consideration.”
Regardless of if you want to call something ‘scientific’ or not, I still think it makes sense to subject our cherished views to some kind of logical and empirical standards.
It seems a grave mistake to go in the opposite direction – to bend our standards so that they fit with a cherished view.
We are all prone to mislead ourselves. It is out of a kind of reflexive skepticism that was aware of this fact that modern science arose.
(PS after ten or more years of this forum, I don’t know why some people think anything useful is going to come out of endless feeding the pigeons)
L Bird “They’re all politically, philosophically, ideologically and methodologically, opposed to democracy!”
You might say that, but has there been a vote to confirm your theory?
DJP – ‘Regardless of if you want to call something ‘scientific’ or not, I still think it makes sense to subject our cherished views to some kind of logical and empirical standards.’
Of course that’s true, I’m just pointing out that such standards are not the exclusive domain of ‘science’.
BD – I keep trying to answer all of your requests but you never attempt to answer mine. Give me something to work with such as a name of a psychologist you recommend who has produced a psychological analysis of the Holocaust – pretty please.Wez, have you looked at some of Stanley Milgram’s work. Not a perfect explanation to be sure, but a little more credible than penis envy.
So I’ve answered your question can you answer my question, do you believe that all of that semi mystical guff about Oedipus complexes, castration anxiety, boys being sexually possessive of their mothers and that infants are sexually excited and develop libidinous drives about passing a turd?
Straight yes or no would suffice
Oh No — Not Stanley Milgram!
To dispel any illusion of Stanley Milgram and his ilk, read Human Kind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman — an essential read for anyone striving to bring about a cooperative society founded upon common ownership and democratic control of the world’s resources.
From “Chapter 8. Stanley Milgram and the Shock Machine”:
- I know of no other study as cynical, as depressing and at the same time as famous as [Stanley Milgram’s] experiments at the shock machine. By the time I’d completed a few months’ research, I reckoned I’d gathered enough ammunition to settle with his legacy. For starters, there are his personal archives, recently opened to the public. It turns out that they contain quite a bit of dirty laundry.
When I heard that archival material was available, Gina Perry told me during my visit to Melbourne, ‘I was eager to look behind the scenes’ (This is the same Gina Perry who exposed the Robbers Cave Experiment as a fraud; see Chapter 7.) And so began what Perry called ‘a process of disillusionment’, culminating in a scathing book documenting her findings. What she uncovered had turned her from Milgram fan into fierce critic.
Let’s first take a look at what Perry found. Again, it’s the story of a driven psychologist chasing prestige and acclaim. A man who misled and manipulated to get the results he wanted. A man who deliberately inflicted serious distress on trusting people who only wanted to help.
“Wez, have you looked at some of Stanley Milgram’s work. Not a perfect explanation to be sure, but a little more credible than penis envy.”
twc, please note I didn’t say I agreed with it, just that it was more credible than penis envy!
If anyone is interested in similar ideas, Zimbardo’s Stamford Prison Experiment and the similar studies done later in the UK and in Germany give food for thought about authoritarianism. Don’t personally agree with Zimbardo’s take on his findings and the alternative interpretation by Erich Fromm is quite interesting, pointing out that the majority of the prison officer students did not join in the abusive processes, although they did not intervene. The holocaust was perpetrated by a small minority of the population, however the majority and especially those who knew, did not intervene.
It’s a bit like the scandals in the Police, TV, showbiz recently. Other officers have known that some of the other police have been sexual predators, but didn’t do anything about it.
On a personal level I do think there is an important issue about the self selection of those who end up in authoritarian positions, whether that is being a concentration camp guard, a police officer or perhaps even leader of a Trotskyist/Leninist splinter party. It is similar to sexual abusers. As well as grooming the children/vulnerable adults, these people are very good at grooming organisations and intimidating those who have any chance to do something about it.
Going back to my earlier postings, there are clear links between psychopathy and insecure attachment and early years trauma.
Here’s a couple of studies:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55765296.pdf
Interestingly both Stalin and Hitler had very abuse early years experiences, looking through the biographies of some of the well known names from the holocaust, many also experienced disrupted and abusive relationships. This kind of mirrors Bowlby’s original study “44 thieves”.
I’m not saying it is an explanation, but it offers some insight.
Another author I have always found quite interesting is Erving Goffman, especially his concepts of Total Institutions.
Nobody has told us what Freud’s explanation of Auschwitz etc would have been. That humans are natural born killers? Or what?
BD – Thanks with providing me with some material to study but you seem to be distancing yourself from a lot of it? You ask about some of Freud’s other theories and I would have to go back and read the context of your assertions/quotes as it has been a long time since I read old Sigi. Of course Freud himself did junk a lot of his early ‘libido theory’ in favour of the Id, Ego and Super Ego hypothesis together with, of course, the Eros/Thanatos construction. I don’t know if many have found psychoanalysis helpful as patients as my main interest was its implications for political theory as expounded by members of the Frankfurt School (my answer to ALB’S inquiry above).
So you refer me to Adorno, Habermas and that lot. I’ve had a go at reading them but it’s torture, so can you summarize what their explanation is.
As they were not and didn’t claim to be psychologists or psychiatrists, I imagine their approach will be philosophical or, with a bit of luck, historical or sociological.
ALB – My main influences in this area were ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ by Adorno and several others and Marcuse’s ‘Eros and Civilisation’. I am fascinated by the dialectical relationship between life and death that the theory of the ‘Death Instinct’ postulates.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.