/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join our matrix! https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(13.13 KB 220x220 Photo_%282%29.jpg)
Anonymous 05/17/2020 (Sun) 11:54:39 No. 509204
Are there any Marxists who reject Psychoanalysis? It seems like a load of bunk to me, yet I see tons of people desperate to embrace people like Freud (who just seems like a total hack).
Marxism has nothing to do with psychoanalysis. Why would it matter if someone who is a marxist rejects it? Its like saying "Is there any physicist who rejects neoclassical economics". Probably, but what about physics makes his opion more valuable for you to mention it?
>>509205 Because I encounter plenty of Althusser and Zizek influenced Marxists who consider Psychoanalysis, alongside Marxism itself, to be one of the 'conflictual sciences' working against the bourgeois order - and who seem to believe the two are interwined.
>>509206 They're right, you know.
Wilhelm Reich is the only psychoanalyst worth taking seriously.
Does being anti-psychiatry count?
>>509216 based and reichpilled
Wow, this has been a pretty shit thread so far.
Lenin had a few very words about it (very negative). "Freudo-Marxism" has never been more than a very niche academic thing, a handful of people in Western Europe. Of course, there is overlap in that both Marx and Freud rejected the idea of the hyper-rational homo economicus – but you can say that about so many people, so we could have many more X-Marxism "movements" like that (Walt-Disney-Marxism, Hayek-Marxism…). Freud looked at history as something strongly shaped by great leaders (a premise which justifies reading and writing long speculative texts about the character of a person as a method of understanding history), which isn't very Marxist. Freud's career as a scientist can be fairly summarized as making up shit while on coke binges.
>>509204 So you don't know why dislike psychoanalysis and you want to live in an echo-chamber where you never hear about it again? Kind of like right wingers with marxism?
>>509282 I agree to a degree about Freud, but I still think he laid the groundwork for something truly revolutionary in the field, and later thinkers such as those mentioned ITT offer great insights. I don't know where we'd be in terms of analyzing the cultural aspects of capitalism without psychoanalysis.
>>509320 No I just wanted to know if any Marxist theorists rejected the concept. It seems like one which is widely embraced, something this thread has reinforced.
>>509333 Widely embraced among Marxists compared to anywhere else, yes, but most Marxists don't know anything about psychoanalysis.
>>509204 >Are there any Marxists who reject Psychoanalysis? Lenin, for example. https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm
>>509351 >he basically believed the cause of Hitler coming to power was sexual repression This guy clearly hasn't been on /pol/.
(1.59 MB 1076x2656 polcucks.png)
>>509356 (me) Honestly any leftypoler should have ample experience dealing with sexually repressed fascists. I don't understand why anyone here would turn a blind eye to this.
>>509359 It's still not the reason, why fascism emerged. If you think so, you are not a marxist.
>>509365 >if u dont agree with me ur not a marxist™
>>509366 If you disagree with the marxist analysis of fascism, you are not a marxist. What is so difficult to understand about this?
>>509216 didn't he believe in orgones and other ridiculous shit
>>509369 Does that theory even necessarily clash with the idea that fascism comes from the need for capitalists to suppress working class movements?
>>509320 Those posts are almost certainly fake - you'd have to be a retard to believe that was real.
>>509369 There was no fascist movement in Marx' time.
(24.83 KB 542x640 behaviorism.jpg)
Why are people so obsessed with Psychanalysis/Freud anyway? I think Behaviorism is a much better theory of psychology, which can be combined with marxism.
>>509397 Better question would be: why are people obsessed with discrediting pschoanalysis? Answer probably is that accepting a subconscious force effectively out of your control is a scary thing to admit to.
>>509413 Everyone knows that we have a 'reptile brain' that has its own desires and needs, but people object to Freud's crap because it adds a bunch of ridiculous unproven nonsense to that equation
(10.93 KB 240x240 2sAkE5t4_400x400.jpg)
>>509413 Your own argument is a good case against psychoanalysis. You can poison the well against any criticism by claiming it is out of fear, irrational, hysterical. IIRC, Freud did this sort of thing himself, which is one of the reasons he is not regarded highly by anyone.
If anything psychoanalysis is part of bourgeois society and needs to be analyzed critically from an anti-psychoanalysis/"psychology" perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays Often times it's just more refined idealism too (Jungianism). Psychology's crap mostly.
>>509419 >>509425 Again, why this intense focus on Freud? Lacan, Badiou, Adorno, Althusser, Zizek etc. have much more developed theories than Freud, who was the first in the field. Yeah, a bunch of what Freud wrote was bunk. I agree. Now stop attacking Freud's character and develop a theory against psychoanalysis if you must, or, you know, study it for a second.
>>509397 Behaviorism is some fascist bullshit.
>>509413 Accepting that people have strong instinctive drives they don't fully understand themselves is not brave or daring, it's one of the most boring statements you can make. That the earth isn't flat is about as controversial: You can find examples of people disagreeing with that, but that's more a testament to the breadth of the internet and the power of search engines than anything else. Accepting that people have strong instinctive drives does not imply accepting Freud. It is common place and it already was before Freud becoming famous. Is there anything about Freud's many specific claims that has stood up? He tried massaging. Electro therapy was also hip for a time, so he tried that as well. How about his advocacy of treating morphine addiction with cocaine and bizarre nose surgeries for treating all sorts of psychological problems? It's probably less dangerous to take advice only from the less hands-on late Freud. But even the less harmful offerings look wrong (the idea that children focus on their opposite-sex parent when daily observation tells you it's usually the parent of the same sex, for example).
>>509494 >Accepting that people have strong instinctive drives does not imply accepting Freud. Of course not. Equating the subconscious with "instincts" is retarded. And the rest of your post is more ranting about Freud. I'm done.
>>509499 >I'm very smart. Too smart for this thread, in fact. Adieu, you plebs! Go fuck your mother.
>>509207 Psychoanalysis - freudianism in particular - is pseudoscientific garbage without a shred of empirical or rational support.It argguably makes people worse.It sure as shit doesn't make them any better/healthier. It's like radlib idpol
>>509216 >Wilhelm Reich Kek The orgone man.Ufo's be stealing my orgone and shit.Break out the cloudbusters asap.Sit in wooden boxes and fuck everything that moves. Fucking moron.
>>509397 Behaviorism is just as pseudoscientific as psyan.
>>509204 Fuck Freud. BUT, I do believe that zizekian hegelianism is useful when trying to uncover people's motivations and traumas. It is highly idealist, but it is also a very creative process that helps to explore the problem space. The final solution will probably not be a hegelian dialectical moment, but it was discovered via negation, and shit like that. Like someone is telling me their problem and why they believe they arrived at it, then I try to inverse their proposal, "what if the opposite were true" kind of move. If it is true, I then try to negate it and go back to the first point, because it might have a kernel of truth. Then I gather all the "discovered reasons" which might be contradictory and try to ask, what if they are true simultaneously. It's very much like cold reading, but I've found it to be a very helpful tool. I'm not a psychoanalyst, nor a psychologist, nor anything. I don't think people should take psychoanalytical tools into a rigid and formal scenario, I would consider that scientism. But I would also consider scientism to dismiss psychoanalysis as useless. Talk therapy is extremely important, especially in our alienated society. We frequently need people to force us to realize what we don't want to admit to ourselves. I went to a medium that spoke with angels. It's obviously bullshit, and I'll skip the story of what led me there. But the point is that this medium was evidently fulfilling the role of a psychoanalyst, except much worse because "the angels" were giving me extremely shitty advice, instead of listening and asking me stuff, like a therapist should do. I once went to a strip club, I'll spare the story as well. At one point, a girl was "dancing" with me / entertaining me, I'm gay so I was uninterested, so we were just talking (and occasionally grabbing her boobs lmao). I mentioned in passing something I was worried about in my personal life (work, or something), and she immediately latched onto it and started asking questions. It became very transparent what was going on, she didn't even look genuinely interested, she was trying to give me mental therapy! Similar to the medium, very unprepared, in a ridiculous environment, and not really a place to ball your eyes out. Anyways, I'll leave that last bit as food for thought.
>>509204 Psychoanalysis is metaphysical (and not scientific). The idea of "pyschosexual stages", while at first seeming to be dialectical, really isn't because it ascribes certain unchangeable, fundamental paths individuals must go through.
>>518924 >certain unchangeable, fundamental paths individuals must go through. To become a self conscious subject That these paths are in a certain sense arbitrary is made utterly clear by Lacan in one of his early seminars discussing a case from Kleine
>>509320 /thread
>>518813 Psychoanalysis relies heavily on introspection, while one of its core tenets is the (plausible) claim that you can't actually do much of that. Freud used self-reflection (or rather self-speculation) about his hidden mental processes to somehow extract the hidden mental patterns of the general population from that. Either his mind was normal, in which case the necessary tools for extreme inward-looking weren't available to him. Or he somehow really had the ability to look deeply inside himself, in that case his abnormal mental apparatus can't serve as a reference model. What Freud wrote about his own dreams makes me think he either made them up or that he had an unusual disposition for language: Everything is full of puns, and multilingual ones at that. I don't know what your dreams are like, but when I'm in a dream I can't read any texts nor tell the time when looking at a clock. Many of my dreams are completely silent. As far as I know that's pretty common. Behaviorism means observing behavior. Speculation about mind states is minimized in behaviorism, it's about predicting behavior based only on (inasmuch as that is possible) observed behavior.
>>509389 Not true, wasn't Action Fracaise founded in the latter years of Marx's life? They're the OG fascist group
>>519325 No, they were founded several years after his death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Fran%C3%A7aise
(108.81 KB 907x1360 understanding the f-word.jpg)
>>509204 https://www.konformist.com/2000/psych-lies.htm Lies My Psychology Professors Taught Me by David McGowan (author of pic related)
>>520448 >Sigmund Freud was a fascist Lel. The man escaped to England to get away from them. Say what you will of his theories, but that claim is just outright bullshit
>>520448 https://www.konformist.com/2000/psych-lies.htm says: > One thing I was taught was that John Watson is a much revered figure in the field of psychology, considered the father of 'behaviorism.' Watson, who began his career in 1908 as a professor of psychology and the director of the psychological laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, was perhaps most notable for venturing into the field of infant study in 1918 - at the time a largely unexplored area of research. Watson conditioned a fear response in an infant identified only as 'Little Albert,' afterwards triumphantly declaring that "men are built, not born." >Ten years later, Watson would pen what was at the time considered the bible of child-rearing, Psychological Care of Infant and Child, assuming the mantle that would later be worn by Dr. Spock. Unfortunately, there are a couple of elements of this story that seem to have been omitted from my textbooks, one of which is that Little Albert was not just some random infant; he was, in fact, the illegitimate son of the good doctor himself. And how did the reigning expert on childcare fare as a father? Not too well, it seems: Albert Watson was so traumatized by his upbringing at the hands of his father that he committed suicide shortly after reaching adulthood. But the following article says it is unknown who the father of "Albert" was and that he died long before reaching puberty, and that it wasn't suicide: <Whatever happened to Douglas, better known as Little Albert? After leaving the Harriet Lane Home, the robust child shown in Watson’s (1923) film became sickly. According to his death certificate (Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1925), Douglas developed hydrocephalus in 1922. Acquired hydrocephalus is often caused by a disease or condition such as encephalitis, meningitis, or a brain tumor (Turkington, 2002). We were unable to determine the source of Douglas’s illness, but a reasonable conjecture is that he contracted meningitis from Flora Brashears. "Finding Little Albert: A Journey to John B. Watson’s Infant Laboratory" by Hall P. Beck, Sharman Levinson, and Gary Irons http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Beck_Hall_2009_Finding_Little_Albert.pdf The Konformist article says: >Following closely in the footsteps of Dr. Watson was B.F. Skinner, the other revered figure in the behaviorist school of psychology. Skinner - who had received a defense grant during World War II to study the training of pigeons for use as part of an early missile guidance system (I don't just make this shit up) - invented what he termed the 'Air Crib' in 1945, which was essentially a sensory deprivation chamber built specifically for infants. Like Watson, he used his own child as a human guinea pig, raising her in the thermostatically controlled, sound-proof isolation chamber for the first two years of her life, cut off from human contact. Skinner ultimately followed a bit too closely in the footsteps of his mentor; Debby Skinner, like Albert Watson, committed suicide in her twenties. But she didn't kill herself in her twenties. Here she is in her own words: <My early childhood, it's true, was certainly unusual - but I was far from unloved. I was a much cuddled baby. Call it what you will, the "aircrib" ,"baby box", "heir conditioner" (not my father's term) was a wonderful alternative to the cage-like cot. My father's intentions were simple, and based on removing what he and my mother saw as the worst aspects of a baby's typical sleeping arrangements: clothes, sheets and blankets. These not only have to be washed, but they restrict arm and leg movement and are a highly imperfect method of keeping a baby comfortable. My mother was happy. She had to give me fewer baths and of course had fewer clothes and blankets to wash, so allowing her more time to enjoy her baby. <(…) <I loved my father dearly. He was fantastically devoted and affectionate. "I was not a lab rat" by Deborah Skinner Buzan https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/mar/12/highereducation.uk
>>520516 >Sigmund Freud had close ties to the Reich as well, particularly to a man named George Viereck - the illegitimate grandson of the Kaiser who had ties to SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and was perhaps the most avid supporter of Nazism in America. Viereck ran an extensive pro-Hitler propaganda operation that included having a U.S. Senator on his payroll - Ernest Lundeen from Minnesota - whose hastily scheduled flight out of Washington following the revelation of his connection to Viereck conveniently crashed on August 31, 1940, as such flights are prone to do. >In 1926, Viereck interviewed Freud - whom he had known for many years - on the subject of anti-Semitism, and in 1930 published that interview in a collection entitled Glimpses of the Great.. Freud would later state that: "I can highly recommend the Gestapo to everyone." And since wherever Nazis congregate, U.S. intelligence is never far away, it's not surprising that Freud had impressive connections to the OSS 'Old Boys' network as well. Particularly close was William Bullit, one of the driving forces behind the OSS, who spent several months working with Freud in Vienna.
>>520537 Yeah I read the article. Can't speak to his relationship with that guy but that quote is definitely taken out of context. http://freudquotes.blogspot.com/2015/09/i-can-heartily-recommend-gestapo-to.html?m=1 First reported in Ernest Jones: Sigmund Freud. Life and work. (1957) p. 226: One of the conditions for being granted an exit visa was that he sign a document that ran as follows, "I Prof. Freud, hereby confirm that after the Anschluss of Austria to the German Reich I have been treated by the German authorities and particularly the Gestapo with all the respect and consideration due to my scientific reputation, that I could live and work in full freedom, that I could continue to pursue my activities in every way I desired, that I found full support from all concerned in this respect, and that I have not the slightest reason for any complaint." When the Nazi Commissar brought it along Freud had of course no compunction in signing it, but he asked if he might be allowed to add a sentence, which was: "I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone". Freud's eldest son Martin told a similar story in his Book Glory Reflected. Sigmund Freud - Man and Father (London 1957; Sigmund Freud - Man and Father, New York 1958, p. 217): [...] an S.S. party had come to ask father to give a certificate proclaiming that he had been well treated by the authorities. Without hesitation, father wrote "Ich kann die Gestapo jedermann auf das beste empfehlen (I can recommend the Gestapo very much to everyone)," using the style of a commercial advertisement. The irony escaped the Nazis; although they were not altogether sure as they passed the certificate from man to man. Finally, however, they shrugged their shoulders and marched off, evidently deciding it was the best the old man could think of. So basically Freud was being cheeky
>>520525 Yeah that article is filled with incorrect assertions and falsehoods. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone
>>520558 [citation needed]
>>509206 >>509207 >conflictual sciences working against the bourgeois order So is flat earth.
>>520569 Literally just look at the last few posts ya dingus
>>509204 Most tend to reject it, strictly speaking that is. however, that does not mean a rejection of psychoanalysis' insights that are of value. The definitive work is Deleuze and Guattaris Anti-oedipus. An earlier marxist critique was "freudianism: a marxist critique", by the linguist Valentin voloshniov. Otherwise, psychoanalysis was synthesised with particular forms of western marxism. wilhelm reich, erich fromm, which was picked up by the frankfurt school, marcuse, horkheimer, adorno. There is a similar development amongst existentialists, especially.those who were more marxists than anything else, sartre is heavily indebted to freud, Joseph gabel, Frantz fanon especially, and yes althusser and his structural marxist school is influenced but they go more in the direction of Lacan. It's almost impossible to even think of marxism without thinking about freud. Maybe if you simplify it down to something incredibly banal, but that's just not what happened with the development of thought. Not freud, but showing a similar orientation for therapy was the spk, socialist patients collective, marxist anti-psychiatric patient unionism. Really interesting stuff.
>>520556 > Ich kann die Gestapo jedermann auf das beste empfehlen (I can recommend the Gestapo very much to everyone)," -> Lmao...classic siggy..how do you read that and not pick out blatant sarcasm? Also, how is it possible to not be influenced by freud or psychoanalysis? The people in this thread that are butthurt have missed out on what should be a basic right of intellectual passage.
Everything being about sex is incel ideology.
>>520916 >>520558 >2 alleged biographical errors (1 for John B Watson, 1 for BF Skinner) claimed from 2 articles (published in 2009 and 2004) in an article published in the year 2000 = "that article is filled with incorrect assertions and falsehoods" Interesting how whoever posted >>520525 clung to 2 alleged errors in biographical details of a couple psychologists, yet failed to find any other error in either facts or premise of https://www.konformist.com/2000/psych-lies.htm, and tellingly, did not even attempt to dispute McGowan's argument that psychology (and psychiatry) is a tool to repress dissent and mold the population into conformity with the corporate/fascist/police state. >>520558 anon, Respond to the argument.
>>509206 >Althusser Murdered his wife >Zizek Slovenian fascist who supported NATO's genocidal bombing and partition of Yugoslavia http://www.idcommunism.com/2017/03/an-apologist-of-imperialism-slavoj.html?m=1 >Psychoanalysis is a 'conflictual science' working against the bourgeois order Psychology and psychiatry are some of the most spooky military-intelligence/fascist infiltrated social sciences on the planet. Have you never read about MKULTRA/CIA mind control-torture and Project Paperclip? Lol at thinking the bourgeois-capitalist order is somehow threatened by two of its favorite tools for psychologically enslaving the masses.
>>518914 Good post. One could make the same observations on religion's role in society where the priests, aside from working to preserve the status quo through a careful application of slave morality to the potentially revolutionary masses, also fulfill an impromptu role of therapist through both formal and informal channels. >Don't worry my son, it was god's will that you lose your job and become unemployed, just trust in god my son and he will deliver you good things in this life or the next >All those landlords and porkies will get their comeuppance in the afterlife, you just continue living humbly at the bottom of the economic ladder and trust in god's plan, remember envy is a sin It at the same time makes you feel better because it absolves both you and the person who did you harm of responsibility, and also serves as a pressure release valve for potential impromptu rebellious moments. Or, as Marx put it, "religion is the opium of the people". Opium of course meaning painkiller. I think what would be interesting is a historical materialist analysis of therapy, pre and post-Freudian forms of it, and how these impact on the stability of society. And I think this analysis should start explicitly from a point that individual relations (the so called psychic sphere) are not somehow divorced from society, but a product of it. Apologies if this is exactly what Zizek does, I haven't gotten around to actually reading anything by him yet.
>>521157 >>Zizek >Slovenian fascist who supported NATO's genocidal bombing and partition of Yugoslavia unironically, if you're a western lefitst you should be barred from speaking about the balkans and it's politics. "partition of yugoslavia" lmao, tell that to the thousands of innocents who were slaughtered by actual fascist militaries such as arkan who was bankrolled by millosh and his clique of criminals.
>>521279 I wish somebody would ask Zizek about it, it would be interesting to hear his answer.
>>521279 Critical support for war criminals and organized rape gangs against the menace that is Slavoj Zizek.
>>509432 Notice how most of those names are French. Psychoanalysis was influential within French academia, hence the active engagement with it. Zizek may be the exception, but he owes a large debt to Lacan.
>>521396 second at 1:15:00 i think there's one more time he mentions it in between those two but i don't remember and its too long to look
>>521136 >Interesting how whoever posted >>520525 clung to 2 alleged errors in biographical details of a couple psychologists, yet failed to find any other error You may have noticed that these are right at the beginning of the article. I just guessed at that point the rest of the article wasn't going to be much better than that. But since you are so interested in the fight for truth and against exaggerations and falsehoods, I'll look for a few more examples: The Konformist article says: >Lobotomy, as was mentioned in a previous article, was developed in fascist Portugal in 1935 by Dr. Egaz Moniz What is this implying about the person? António Egas Moniz was a republican (in the European sense, meaning an anti-monarchist). He retired from politics in 1919 and the undemocratic Estado Novo era started in 1933. >Moniz's procedure did not prove too popular with his patients however. In 1939 he was shot and partially paralyzed by a former patient. He was apparently not attacked by a former patient, According to his article's talk page on Wikipedia, that didn't happen, the relevant comment refers to the book Great Desperate Cures by Elliot Valenstein for the debunking, though I haven't found a free copy of it to verify that. >Sixteen years later, another former patient would finish the job, beating Moniz to death with his Nobel Peace Prize (actually, I don't know what he beat him with, but there would have been a certain poetic justice had he used the undeserved award). Perhaps unsurprisingly, I couldn't find him among the list of recipients of the Nobel Peace Price. He got the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1949/moniz/facts/ He also wasn't beaten to death with that either. He died at home, from old age. The Konformist article referred to Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung as "rabid fascists" and says that "Freud had close ties to the Reich". But Freud was known to have Jewish heritage (he revealed bits about himself in his own works) and he had to flee the country. (This is not obscure knowledge.) His entry in the database for banned works in Nazi Germany is here: https://verbrannte-und-verbannte.de/person/3319 "Sämtliche Schriften" means all of his works were banned.
>>521279 >Zizek >if you're a western lefitst you should be barred from speaking about the balkans How's Slovenia not "Balkans"?
>>521396 >>521434 That sound quality tho
>>520537 >Freud was once interviewed by this guy who later interviewed Hitler, which makes Freud fascist >this guy knew this other guy, who was even more fascistier, so that makes Freud double fascist /pol/ tier argument
>>521434 >>521396 >>521434 the second/third instance is 1:06:30
(50.62 KB 943x166 robert conqest.png)
>>520986 >how do you read that and not pick out blatant sarcasm? Also, how is it possible to not be influenced by freud or psychoanalysis? Because the aim of those who vigorously oppose psychoanalysis was smearing the discipline not "proving it wrong."
>>521495 The article isn't much about Freud. Freud appears in that as just one guy in a big behaviorist-lobotomizer-jungian-fascist-etc. conspiracy.
It's unwise to talk about Psychoanalysis in sweeping terms, the same way it's unwise to talk about marxism in sweeping terms. There's a lot of validity to the practice and theory even if you have particular gripes with Freud. It's a century old discipline, with a huge variety of sects. Boiling it down to just Freud (and, based on this thread, shallow/half-readings of Freud) is misguided at best and reactionary at worst.
>>522423 Then enlighten us. Divide it up among crap and non-crap tendencies, maybe even with an intermediary category between the two.
>>522436 It really depends what you mean by crap and non-crap. I'm not even an expert or anything in psychoanalysis--so I couldn't tell you how say, Ferenczi and Jung and Fromm really differ from one another. It's just stupid to write off a whole field like this. But if you ask me, the notion of the unconscious is a powerful one, and worth taking extremely seriously (as most 20th century marxists did). Not to mention that it's from Freud that we get the notion of Trauma, for instance. Most people are, at this point, always already engaging in some form of psychoanalysis.
>>522471 >worth taking extremely seriously (as most 20th century marxists did) Buuuuuuuuuuullllllshit. It was a few academics in Western Europe. >Not to mention that it's from Freud that we get the notion of Trauma Freud did NOT invent the notion of trauma.
>>522423 This. I really would love to learn about psychoanalysis, but any time it's brought up on this board you get similar knee-jerk reactions that you expect from reactionaries with regards to communism. Nearly every post ITT has just been "Freud sniffed coke off of 6.000.000 bourgeois titties".
>>522678 >It was a few academics in Western Europe. It really wasn't. Everyone from the Frankfurts to Focault, Jameson, Negri, Fisher, and so on has dealt with, or explicitly followed in, the psychoanalytic tradition. >Freud did NOT invent the notion of trauma. Yeah Charcot did some of the first theorizations of it, then Freud, his student, really brought it to mass consciousness. We would not take seriously the notion of psychological trauma today, particularly that stemming from childhood experiences, if it weren't for Freud. This is not a debatable point.
>>522777 Yeah, I've been noticing that a lot lately. There is an extremely reactionary base of people on this board, mostly new leftists that will attack anything that falls outside of the early 20th century canon. Imo, 'marxism' only has relevance today because it absorbed the psychoanalytic critique in its own way. Or schizoanalysis, or existentialism..etc..etc...this board is doomed if we don't fight for a cultural revolution to show the kids just how diverse radical thought really is when it's used for revolution in the 21st century. Problem is, all the non orthodox stuff takes time to get into, and the distance from entry level to developed critique widens the longer you've been a radical.
>>522784 >It really wasn't. Everyone from the Frankfurts Western Europe >to Focault, Western Europe >Jameson, Burger >Negri, Western Europe >Fisher Western Europe
>>523775 >Kojin Karatani Japanese >the whole Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis Eastern Europe >Srećko Horvat Eastern Europe >Cornelius Castoriadis Greek-French >Frantz Fanon Caribbean >Vera Schmidt USSR ...
>>523938 Nice try, but that doesn't change the fact that most 20th century Marxists didn't care about psychoanalysis.
>>521478 didn't know about this thx
>>524004 who exactly are you thinking of? Just MLs?
>>524004 You are just moving the goalposts now. You prove again and again that you don't actually argue in good faith. >>524029 I'm ML and I'm into Lacanian and Frank Furtschool stuff.
>>524042 I didn't say MLs couldn't be into psychoanalysis, but it's not like Lenin or Mao or anyone was writing about it.
>>524047 Lenin disapproved of it - not that he studied it in depth. He basically saw how it became chic among people he was not fond of and that's as much he needed. Trotsky liked Freud. Mao I don't think ever even heard of him. But this whole "in which region is it popular" and "who personally was into it" isn't actually addressing it, now is it?
>>524029 >>524047 Almost everyone I've interacted with who got into psychoanalysis and Marxism turned into some flavor of ML.
>>524094 There's an anarchist bookshop in my town and had a chat with the leftcom/ancom dude who runs it. Long story short they only approve of Wilhelm Reich and dislike all others (Freud, Lacan, Althusser, Zizek&co., and the Frankfurers). Pretty lame, if you ask me, fearing the pessimism of these thinkers -- while having had studied the 20th century -- and still choosing the deranged idealist, because his conclusions makes you feel good.
>>524042 >You are just moving the goalposts I originally called the statement that saying most 20th century Marxists took psychoanalysis seriously bullshit. And I'm still calling it bullshit. Most 20th century Marxists lived in Asia, same in this century. Do you really believe that even a tenth of Marxists subscribe to Freud? I also said that taking Freud seriously is a Western Europe thing. So here's my ebin goalpost-moving admission: I admit that slightly more than exactly zero "Freudo-Marxists" exist outside of Western Europe. Woopdefuckingdoo. It is still very much niche and that niche is mostly in Western Europe (and to be clear, most Marxists within Western Europe aren't into Freud) and calling it anything else than a niche is delusional. It is a much smaller niche than Christian Marxists or Muslim Marxists or Vegetarian Marxists and having any sort of belief that it is less idiosyncratic than those things is just western student wanker myopia on your part.
>>509204 Surprised that Freudposter hasn't appeared yet to call you a retard and order you to read Lacan.
>>524117 >Do you really believe that even a tenth of Marxists subscribe to Freud? I really don't give a shit because most of them didn't study Freud in depth. You could just as easily say that "not even a tenth of every Marxist subscribe to a hydrogeophysicist journal" and it would hold just as much value in my eye as a supposed criticism of hydrogeophysics as a discipline. You could say that, "sure, but almost all Marxists accept the validity of hydrogeophysics," (while less then tenth of them even heard about it), but then we'd see that they rely on the authority of experts and not their own intelligence. I love having to share this board with such intellectually lazy asses as yourself, who rely on third and second hand accounts (with such glaring misrepresentations as >>520556 and mere focus on biographical nothingburger drama >>521469) and completely ruled out of even consulting second hand accounts (or unbiased intro books) on the subject, not to mention the original material. You must view this as a contest of taking sides between "cringe" and "based" people, like a good little sycophant. "Lenin said Freud a shit, so I don't need to read him to critique him" is an attitude Lenin would despise, and one that actually hurt 20th century socialism.
>>524066 >>524094 Huh, the more you know. I only assumed as much since Psychoanalytic Marxism only really came on on the scene with the Frankfurts and associates.
>>524094 Did they happen to turn into libertarian leninists
>>524238 >libertarian leninists Wew.
>>521396 I love him shitting on Chomsky
>>524197 >I really don't give a shit That's not an argument, that's narcissism. It is wrong to claim that most 20th century Marxists took Freud seriously. Your analogy with hydrogeophysics doesn't work because it isn't in conflict with Marxism, whereas Freud was an anti-communist who subscribed to the great-men view of history.
>>524664 Psychoanalysis is not in conflict with Marxism either, you dishonest little rat.
>>524877 >Freud was an anti-communist who subscribed to the great-men view of history >not in conflict with Marxism
>>524948 What Freud himself thought about Marxism is irrelevant, what actually matters is whether his ideas are in conflict with Marxism or not. Please elaborate how they are, if you think so.
>>524964 >what actually matters is whether his ideas are in conflict with Marxism or not. Read Civilization and Its Discontents.
>>524998 Care to explain what you mean instead of giving me a book recommendation?
>>525004 Just read it. It's pretty short.
>>525087 So you can't. Good to know.
>>525094 >I win by not reading anything Oh hai muke.
>>525107 It's extremely annoying to come across intellectually lazy people who cannot even formulate an argument. You should work on that if you care about convincing people.
>>525116 I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.
>>525141 You should still practice your arguments so that you can convince people IRL
>>525107 >i don't have to argue my position in the slightest Oh hi retard.
>>525146 It's useless. Have you ever tried to deprogram Freudfags IRL? Your options: >1. bring up a short excerpt <This is out of context and you are ignorant :^) >2. give them the whole text <tldr :^) >3. try finding the golden mean between 1 & 2 <This is out of context and also too long :^)
>>525173 There is another option. Formulate an argument (don't quote) and explain to Freudfags why they're wrong. I think your main problem is that you aren't capable of doing that.
>>525185 No, you know what, you are right. Being a Freudian fits very well together with being a communist. Now that you have decided to be a Freudian communist, go read Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents and enjoy the coherence.
>>525190 You still haven't been able to formulate an argument. How are you different from a "it's not my job to educate you" radlib?
>>524964 >what actually matters is whether his ideas are in conflict with Marxism or not. They are, because Freudism is unscientific garbage
>>525238 Explain how it is unscientific garbage. Back up your claims.
>>521157 >Murdered his wife Irrelevant to works he produced before going crazy.
>>525203 In fact you can't teach people by spoonfeeding them. If I tell you what to think of Marx and what to think of Freud and so what to think about how they relate to each other, how are you supposed to know that they do indeed relate to each other that way? I could have made a nebulous gesture towards the works of Freud, but I didn't do that. I did not ask you to go read an entire bookshelf. And it isn't an obscure text, those in the pro-Freud camp should already know its contents in and out, so I'm not offloading an unfair burden onto the pro-Freud camp in this discussion. If my stance on Freud is wrong, you should benefit from reading it.
>>525262 If we're going to have a discussion you have to formulate criticism that we actually can respond to. Otherwise, it's completely pointless. If I want to verify what you say I will, but I can't do that unless you actually say something. You are trying to dodge actually making an argument and I suspect it's deliberate. And I'm actually not that much of a Freudfag, although I have read him, I just find your attitude extremely lazy and unproductive.
>>525203 Not that guy, but my issue with guys like Zizek, Lasch, Nagle, etc is that they tend to emphasize that the problem with capitalism is the instability of the market, the lack of communal connection, the lack of a sense of purpose, rather than the market being a repressive force that keeps people from growing. Of course they probably wouldn't disagree that the market is repressive, but my impression is that what they think is repressive about it is not the same as what someone like Delueze thought was repressive. Chapo Trap House thinks in a similar way too, especially when they talk about alienation in a way that is separate from how Marx thought about it. It all really goes back to this spat between Striner and Marx, and I think some Marxists tend to write off Stirner because they have a shallow reading of Stirner. I think you should be a Marxist because it's in your own self interest, not because it's the right or moral thing to do, basically.
>>525273 Thank you for actually explaining what you mean. I really appreciate that. Personally, I don't see any problem with focusing on the psychological effect that capitalism has on individuals. I get what you mean with that it's somewhat dissimilar to what Marx's actually talks about (his concept of alienation is different from the colloquial definition of alienation for instance) , but the effects are still real and felt by people. Surely it's just as much in our self-interest to escape that as it is in our self-interest to escape wage slavery?
>>525271 >I have read him What exactly?
>>509204 Freud was a retarted drug addict. Psychoanalysis isn’t theory. It’s just crackpot retardation. Marxism as a theory is upheld because it’s description of how capitalism operates and historical trends are by and large true. Psychoanalysis can’t be proven like Marxism can.
>>525286 There's only so much a therapist can say to you or do for you, and while that can be relieving, you'll still be depressed if you're oppressed. I don't think being depressed is a bad thing, it's good to feel bad; it's your body telling you something's wrong. I'm not opposed to psychoanalysis or psychiatry as a tool (a very limited one), but I don't like the mentality a lot of Freudians push: that it's the individual's inability to cope with the system, rather than the systems inability to provide for people that causes neurosis.
>>525302 Mostly the case histories, but it was a long time ago. >>525324 When I'm talking about escaping the detrimental effects capitalism has on your psyche, I'm not talking about therapy, I'm talking about revolution.
>>525313 >marx was a retarded drunk. Communism isn't theory. It's just crackpot retardation. Gottem.
>>525330 How about reading this: >The communists believe that they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them, man is wholly good and is well-disposed to his neighbour; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and with it the temptation to ill-treat his neighbour; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone’s needs would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as his enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary. I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous.* But I am able to recognize that the psychological premisses on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. >*Anyone who has tasted the miseries of poverty in his own youth and has experienced the indifference and arrogance of the well-to-do, should be safe from the suspicion of having no understanding or good will towards endeavours to fight against the inequality of wealth among men and all that it leads to. To be sure, if an attempt is made to base this fight upon an abstract demand, in the name of justice, for equality for all men, there is a very obvious objection to be made — that nature, by endowing individuals with extremely unequal physical attributes and mental capacities, has introduced injustices against which there is no remedy.
>>525273 I wouldn't group zizek together with people like nagle. For zizek, alienation is not a problem with the simple solution of returning to a holistic society but by shifting the perspective on what alienation means.
>>525357 How about you use words to explain what you mean instead of just quoting a passage? Why is that so hard for you?
>>525364 Actually, I'm just quoting myself there. What do you think about my opinion I'm expressing in that post?
>>525392 You're not, so I'm not going to have an opinion.
>>525400 Yes I am.
(18.85 KB 280x180 4e5rtz.jpeg)
>>525357 not all men are created equal, but that doesn't mean we have to create yet more inequality with class society. Do you understand that capitalism is not the result of biological inequalities of people but rather just adds artificial inequality on top of it. making it worse. If you look at the processes of how wealth and power are distributed in capitalism it's essentially random. People have created models that had agents engage into capitalist economic exchanges except that the agents they modelled behaved randomly and the results were exactly what we see in reality, meaning that the statistical effects of money market schemes are so powerful the individual biological characteristics play no role in it. Rich people just like to pretend they have special biology because it's better apologetics for stealing the surplus that others have created, then to admit that they just got lucky and it might as well have been somebody else. Oh by the way eventually people get good at manipulating biology so that it gets possible to fix health and looks of everybody, maybe even find out how to improve the mental capacities of people. So even biology is not an eternal thing.
>>509359 I'm the guy in the third post, this was one of our raids we did back in the days of 8chan, we spammed IR on 4chan and 8chan /pol/ boards and other Alt-Right leaning boards to demoralize them. It's one of the best strategy we have against the resurgence of wignatism.
>>525592 Sure I believe you, /pol/yp. These pics are all totally fake and if they are not it was a false flag and if it wasn't that it was an individual case. Just like usual.
>>525599 >/pol/yp I don't even browse there nor do I ideologically agree with fucking nazis, especially when I'm a non-white. What I'm saying is that we conducted false flag operations, we created fake IR discord to grab /pol/tards' ip and dox them, like i mentioned previously, we would spam ir threads on 8chan and 4chan to demoralize them/lure them into our IR discord for doxing.
>>525709 You won't mind posting the results or other form of proof of these operations then, I am sure. Subtlety is not your forte.
>>509413 It's physics-envy. People are afraid to acknowledge that good psychology is dependent on study of the "humanities" rather than just pure statistical "hard science."
>>521469 https://www.konformist.com/2000/psych-lies.htm >And since wherever Nazis congregate, U.S. intelligence is never far away, it's not surprising that Freud had impressive connections to the OSS 'Old Boys' network as well. Particularly close was William Bullit, one of the driving forces behind the OSS, who spent several months working with Freud in Vienna. Yeah, I'm sure Freud being close friends and co-authoring a book with one of the top elite men behind the proto-CIA (the OSS) of the US empire for the last 2 decades of his life has absolutely zero fascist implications.
(54.91 KB 169x265 Snip.PNG)
>>525790 >Posting the results Easy, just go on the /pol/ catalog, these retards are already demoralized, also the comments are a goldmine of /pol/tard tears.


no cookies?