Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘how can killing yourself assist the species.’
BD – if that is what you understand of the theory then clearly you haven’t grasped the nuanced and dialectical elements within it. Here’s my introduction: https://wezselecta.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-death-instinct.html#comment-formBD – I admire your optimism and I would love to agree with you but then how do you explain the ongoing genocide in Gaza? Israeli soldiers are just ordinary people like you and me and yet they can do such an inhuman thing. Scratch a ‘liberal’ and you’ll find a conservative who will unquestioningly murder his fellow man in the name of some tribe or other. Unfortunately the ‘civilization’ that bourgeois culture would like us to believe in is a very thin veneer. I too believe that the default ‘human nature’ is one of mutuality and cooperation but you seem to severely underestimate the psychological damage done to us all by the sick culture we are forced to live in. I believe Freud’s theory of the death instinct perfectly captures the essence and nature of the despair that causes such hatred and fear which is really a projection of self loathing.
BD – Thanks for that considered addition to the debate. I will read it again but, to me, the most obvious mistake you make is to emphasize ‘individualism’ and ‘difference’ in human personalities. What has always struck me, in terms of political debate, is how similar and conditioned people are. The ‘human nature’ argument against socialism seems almost universal in my experience, usually made by those who consider themselves as supreme examples of ‘individuality’. Surely a Marxian class analysis demands that we should emphasize the ‘sameness’ of ideological and behavioral social phenomena? Your distinction between ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ views is surely irrelevant to socialists as both lead, and have led, inevitably to hell on earth. As I said I will read it again but these points above surprised me coming from a socialist and/or sympathizer.
I see Streeting has already began the persecution of the sick and unemployed – quick out of the blocks for the honour of Labour tu*d of the week.
DJP – Defining something that is irrational and incoherent isn’t easy but then that is one of the strengths of Fascism.
ALB – You write in the above that: ‘Fascism, then, in its proper sense was an inter-world-war historical phenomenon which is not going to repeat itself because the conditions of that time are not going to. In this sense classical fascism is not a threat.’
But hasn’t it been seen to be a threat in the Middle East, South America and Africa? Your rather Eurocentric view might possibly hold up in a European context (although this is unlikely given the Ukrainian conflict) but certainly not in a global context.‘To discuss this meaningfully, we need a working definition of fascism that distinguishes from conservatism, authoritarianism, militarism and nationalism – things we have seen in government many times over.’
YMS – Fascism contains all of the above. For the Hitler regime we can add: charismatic leader cult, pseudo religiosity, belief in a ‘golden age’ past, racism, xenophobia, cultural superiority etc. In terms of economics ‘National Socialism’ did not go in for nationalization of industry but rather packed the boards of these companies with Nazis. There are also elements of social Darwinism together with the Nietzschean ‘force of the will’. These ideological elements are all present to one degree or another within capitalist ideology and only find their extreme expression when capitalism periodically crashes and burns.
‘I see even you draw a distinction between “fascist” and “fascistic” !’
‘Even you’! I’m just asking questions. Even the two most infamous examples of fascism, Italy and Germany, were not identical. Just as the evolution of capitalism has taken different paths in different countries; we can still call them capitalist. Ideology apart I think we can use the term to describe a particular type of capitalism which, like its leftwing counterpart of Bolshevism, evolves as a response to the failure of ‘liberal’ capitalism. Certainly you don’t have to belong to a party that calls itself fascist to be one. I sometimes get the feeling that comrades believe that what happened in the middle part of the 20th century in Europe can never happen again – I do not share such optimism.
Anyway TM to save you any tedious research here’s my introduction to Freud’s Death Instinct. https://wezselecta.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-death-instinct.html#comment-form
Perhaps BD might be interested too?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?
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.
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.
ALB – ‘Of course physicists know what gravity is. It’s the attraction between things that have mass.’
Well that’s alright then, you’ve just solved one of the greatest mysteries in science. In Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity) there is no ‘force of attraction’ between masses and the effect is caused by the curvature of space.
BD – I’m only interested in Freud’s theories as they can be used to explain political ideology. As far as I know no other psychological theory has been used for such a purpose?. Of course his theories have to be complemented by a Marxian perspective to make any sense which is what, I believe, the Frankfurt guys did with some success. You plainly believe his theories have no application in terms of individual therapy but, presumably, there are therapists who would disagree with you on that?ALB wrote: ‘By the way, quantum mechanics is an explanation of phenomenon observed in the movement of sub-atomic particles and has no application outside that field.’
You couldn’t be more mistaken. Quantum mechanics has caused a crisis of cultural understanding of the world. The synthesis of the observer and the observed is a profound concept applicable to every phenomena. I notice you’ve changed the question you ask from ‘what are forces composed of’ to how are they measured. Presumably because you can’t answer my question you concentrate on the other. Your need for things to be described in ‘physical terms’ betrays a very old fashioned kind of mechanical materialism. While in hospital I am continually asked ‘what number would you describe the pain as between 1 and 10’ when my answer would be it’s a creeping malaise that is always present but intensifies at certain times for no apparent reason. In other words I don’t believe measurement is always the royal road to reality. We’ve had this debate as long as I’ve known you and the hole doesn’t seem to be any deeper now than it was at the beginning. By the way how is the force of gravity described in ‘physical terms’? The physicists of the world would be very interested to know.
