Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Almamater ‘I can not imagine going to a discotheque or a night club to dance protest music’
Back in the day that’s the only kind of music we used to dance to – Burning Spear, Johnny Clarke, The Abyssinians, Gil Scott Heron, James Brown, Bob Marley, Misty in Roots, Cymande etc., etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RTs7erqEWM
Thomas More seems to be almost relishing the idea of a third world war – perhaps he sees it as the revenge of his beloved animals?
TM ‘Species difference and diversity is not a comparing game.’
One of the ways in which we understand the world is through sameness and difference so, in many respects, all language depends on a ‘comparing game’. This is how species are categorized scientifically and why such categories are continually subject to change. It’s hard to imagine literature without metaphor!TM – You do talk the most absolute nonsense. From whence does your straw man of hierarchy emerge in anything I have said? Presumably you are a socialist because, among other things, you wish to protect the environment for your beloved animals as well as ourselves – does this make you a believer in hierarchy? Surely it is just a recognition that our species can be in a position to help other species that do not have our level of consciousness. I will not repeat again that I am a determinist and do not believe in ‘free will’ but your need to believe that I do blinds you to this fact. Indeed you are trapped so deeply within your own preconceptions and prejudices about your me and your fellow species that further discourse seems superfluous. I wish you adieu.
TM – To say that we are the only species (on this planet) that is conscious of the laws of nature is not arrogance but a fact.
TM – ‘You see i have no problem because i don’t see humans as “above” anything. We are an animal species, material organisms, including our wills, which are the effects of sense impressions, external and internal motion.’
Of course we are ‘above’ all other species because we are an example of the universe becoming conscious of itself. Suck it up TM and all the responsibilities it implies.
TM-‘The motive in you to believe in free will, because you feel the opposite diminishes your sense of moral agency, seems so strong, you maybe should yield to it, and reject a materialism which you feel is reductionist.’
There you go again, telling me what I think. I was a materialist probably before you were born so don’t be telling me that I’m an idealist. I’ve said that I accept that: ‘One answer is that even if we see free will as an illusion, we can still recognize the social requirements for ethics and morals.’ but don’t like it because it points to a weakness in materialism/determinism. Here’s something I wrote many years ago that might set your heart at rest: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2017/2010s/no-1357-september-2017/crime-and-capital/
