Erich Fromm and Raya Dunyevskya

[A.R.Amistad]

I think i have just fallen in love with Erich Fromm, and I have only learned about him in the past hour. What are everyone's thoughts on him? I really enjoy his and Raya Dunayevskya's works. I don't necessarily agree with all of their political arguments, but I find their analysis of Marxist philosophy to be quite dynamic and refreshing.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I read "Marx's Conception of Man" a few years ago. Its mostly based on Marx's "Philosophic and Economic Manuscripts" and 1844 stuff. Its really good, IMHO. It comes close to providing a Marxist psychology and theory of human nature.Its a must read, IMHO.

I like Fromm a lot but he is somewhat controversial among Marxists. In MCM he tones down a lot of the revolutionary implications of Marxism (it was written during the Cold war 50s).
C. Clarke Kissinger of the RCP at a talk I attended called MCM a "reactionary book" (I was surprised to hear this and it could just be sectarianism). Marcuse and Paul Mattick both accuse Fromm of being a reformist.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1956/fromm.htm

Fromm's politics might have been a bit off but his psychology was good.

Interestingly I am just starting to read Raya D. myself.

[mikelepore]

I had an old copy of the socialist journal "Science and Society", the issue that came out right after _Marx's Concept of Man_ was published. The issue contained numerous letters to the editor complaining about the book. The writers said that Fromm had deleted all traces of the idea of the class struggle from his description of Marx's ideas. I hadn't noticed that when I read the book because the discussion of fulfilling human potential in a classless society seemed so persuasive to me, but then, looking back, I too was unable to see in the book any hint that Marx wrote about the class struggle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Since Dunayevskaya comes out with little other than a priori dogmatics (in philosophy), uncritically swallowing the defective 'logic' one finds in Hegel, it's not surprising some comrades find her work conducive to their world-view -- after all Marx did say the following:


"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), The German Ideology, pp.64-65.]

Seems these 'ruling ideas' also hold some comrades here in their thrall, too.

And, since Fromm bases his ideas on those of that fraud, Freud, I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A friend of mine a few years ago recomended I read Dunayevskaya . I was told to approach with caution, Dunayevskaya is known to suffer from "Hegelian indigestion". She was the founder of Humanist Marxism. They put out Notes and Letters, which is interesting
and another faction puts out Hobgoblin in Britain

http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/

[A.R.Amistad]

I had an old copy of the socialist journal "Science and Society", the issue that came out right after _Marx's Concept of Man_ was published. The issue contained numerous letters to the editor complaining about the book. The writers said that Fromm had deleted all traces of the idea of the class struggle from his description of Marx's ideas. I hadn't noticed that when I read the book because the discussion of fulfilling human potential in a classless society seemed so persuasive to me, but then, looking back, I too was unable to see in the book any hint that Marx wrote about the class struggle.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he ignored or deleted the class struggle, he simply focused on a Marxist view on the individual. Since "capitalism is a social, not an individual force," Fromm I think has a great view of the individual and of Marxist psychology, which I'm becoming interested in. I usually leave class struggle to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. since that's what they're superb at. I think one can only talk so much about class struggle in psychology, and the more mature his work became the more he divorced himself from Freud's deterministic-individualism and came to a much more (I's say thoroughly Marxist) Marxist understanding of psychology, the individual, etc.

One more thing, many Marxist-Humanists seem to obsessed with "spontaneity." I don't see why they oppose a vanguard party so much. Personally, I think Dunayevskya really misunderstands the vanguard party concept. I am a Marxist-Humanist and see no contradiction with the Bolshevik revolutionary method, at least as opposed to bureaucratic centralism perversions of the party.

[Dean]

Erich Fromm created (and uncovered one in Marx's theories) a psychological framework within which one can understand freedom and class emancipation.

The simple fact is that free human activity must be understood as a psychological issue. I have only seen a few people take this point seriously.

One of the most important diversions from contemporary political prejudice that is offered is the ability to understand economic freedom as a socialist paradigm. If others control your economic life (as in capitalism) then "free market" "economic freedom" is a fraud.

These are a couple of the points that Fromm was able to teach me in my early life. Another was the ability to shed off dogmatism - faithfully and uncritically following leaders like Lenin or Mao.

There are problems with his works - notably some unfortunate positions on homosexuality - but in a lot of ways, Fromm offers a critical framework upon which Marxist ideology can have a steady foundation. Escape From Freedom is an important work for any communist to read, and I would suggest you start there.

[Hit The North]

The simple fact is that free human activity must be understood as a psychological issue.

What does this actually mean? Free human activity is, by definition, a condition of social existence, which obviously has psychological repercussions, but it is not reducible to a psychological category; neither can it be achieved psychologically. One cannot think oneself free, for instance.

Or am I missing your point?

[A.R.Amistad]

What does this actually mean? Free human activity is, by definition, a condition of social existence, which obviously has psychological repercussions, but it is not reducible to a psychological category; neither can it be achieved psychologically. One cannot think oneself free, for instance.

Or am I missing your point?

Yes, but we do need a revolutionary Marxist psychology to back up our social theories on the individual level.

[Hit The North]

Yes, but we do need a revolutionary Marxist psychology to back up our social theories on the individual level.

Why do we?

[More Fire for the People]

I read a lot of Dunyevskya and CLR James a couple years back. The Johnson-Forest tendency was the most intellectually fruitful American Marxist group. Indeed, their 'Marxist humanism' seemed to transcend the two shit-piles floating around Europe at the time (reformism without class struggle a la PCF and Eurocommunism and the anti-subjectivism of Althusser & his ilk).

[A.R.Amistad]

Why do we?

So that we divorce ourselves from vulgar economic determinism, which is a revisionist ideology. I think we make a big mistake when saying that the class struggle is the cause of every single action we do in our lives. I believe it is the most important factor in society and I am far from condemning the class struggle, but I think a Marxist view of the individual in society is just as important. "Capitalism is a social, not an individual force."


I read a lot of Dunyevskya and CLR James a couple years back. The Johnson-Forest tendency was the most intellectually fruitful American Marxist group. Indeed, their 'Marxist humanism' seemed to transcend the two shit-piles floating around Europe at the time (reformism without class struggle a la PCF and Eurocommunism and the anti-subjectivism of Althusser & his ilk).


I agree, but I don't agree with the Johnson-Forest Tendency. I think maybe they're issue was that they were far too intellectual, which might explain the elements of ultra-leftism in their politics.

[More Fire for the People]

I agree, but I don't agree with the Johnson-Forest Tendency. I think maybe they're issue was that they were far too intellectual, which might explain the elements of ultra-leftism in their politics.
Martin Glaberman, Grace Lee Boggs, and James Boggs were all emerged in practical struggles of the working class. Grace Lee is still active in those struggles today at age 95.

[A.R.Amistad]

Martin Glaberman, Grace Lee Boggs, and James Boggs were all emerged in practical struggles of the working class. Grace Lee is still active in those struggles today at age 95.
Out of curiosity, what were the poltical stances of the tendency? i never researched the split and I'm a huge James P. Cannon guy.

[BAM]

Loren Goldner has a nice short essay (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/johnson.html) outlining the history of the Johnson-Forest Tendency and their theory of autonomous workers' self-activity against parties and labour unions. And there's also a longer critical piece here (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/james.html).

[More Fire for the People]

Out of curiosity, what were the poltical stances of the tendency? i never researched the split and I'm a huge James P. Cannon guy.
I don't think they had any collective political positions across the tendency. In general I would say though that the tendency (1) considered the Soviet Union state-capitalist and (2) believed Marxists should be at the forefront of anti-colonial, African American, feminist, and other progressive struggles.

[A.R.Amistad]

Much thanks. But back to the thread, what are everyone's views on Fromm's ideas and his views on the human individual, and on Marxist Humanism in general?

[BAM]

Much thanks. But back to the thread, what are everyone's views on Fromm's ideas and his views on the human individual, and on Marxist Humanism in general?

Personally I am not keen on Fromm, because I don't like Freud.

As for Marxist Humanism, I do very much like the work of Andrew Kliman (http://akliman.squarespace.com/), the economist in the Marxist Humanist Initiative (http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/) (I think they split from News and Letters a couple of years ago), but you don't have to be a Marxist-Humanist to agree with what he says on the falling rate of profit or the so-called "transformation problem", which is actually a non-problem.

[S.Artesian]

A friend of mine a few years ago recomended I read Dunayevskaya . I was told to approach with caution, Dunayevskaya is known to suffer from "Hegelian indigestion". She was the founder of Humanist Marxism. They put out Notes and Letters, which is interesting
and another faction puts out Hobgoblin in Britain

http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/

Don't worry, it won't cause you any harm to read Dunayevskaya and make your own determinations.

[S.Artesian]

So that we divorce ourselves from vulgar economic determinism, which is a revisionist ideology. I think we make a big mistake when saying that the class struggle is the cause of every single action we do in our lives. I believe it is the most important factor in society and I am far from condemning the class struggle, but I think a Marxist view of the individual in society is just as important. "Capitalism is a social, not an individual force."



I agree, but I don't agree with the Johnson-Forest Tendency. I think maybe they're issue was that they were far too intellectual, which might explain the elements of ultra-leftism in their politics.

Well, does that mean Marx was a vulgar economic determinist because he developed no such psychology of free human activity, but instead analyzed the social, material components of human activity?

I don't know any Marxists who argue that class struggle accounts for every action of every individual. I mean I used to think about that while brushing my teeth, but then I realized I brushed my teeth when not thinking about class struggle, too.

[A.R.Amistad]

Well, does that mean Marx was a vulgar economic determinist because he developed no such psychology of free human activity, but instead analyzed the social, material components of human activity?

I don't know any Marxists who argue that class struggle accounts for every action of every individual. I mean I used to think about that while brushing my teeth, but then I realized I brushed my teeth when not thinking about class struggle, too.

I agree. I am not condemning Marx at all, and in fact Marx condemned people for abusing Historical Materialism basically to ignore human activity. I see the creation of the Third International as a revolt against the vulgar economic determinism of the Second International, which they used to justify their support of nationalist chauvinism and of WWI. Recently, I have been interested in a Marxist view of the individual, and so far I am sympathetic to Erich Fromm's works on the subject.

[gilhyle]

I dont think we do need a Marxist psychology for that reason. Nor do I believe such a psychology is going to help with that issue.

What we need is a willingness to critique psychology. Certain people from a position close to communist tendencies have done this - notably for me Lucienn Seve, Wilhem Reich and Lev Vygotsky. I would like to add R.D. Laing to the list as a constructive representative of existentialist psychological perspectives - although I dont think he ever took seriously Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, which is in a sense an attempt at a formal historical social psychology.

It doesnt worry me that all these are quite flawed thinkers (Vygotsky least so) nor that that they link to a much broader spectrum of 'radical' critics of psychological science who are constantly generated by capitalist society as part of its integral process of generating its own internal critics/dissent.

Looked at in this light, Fromm is really quite a minor figure. If anything, it seems to me, the impact of Marx in helping Fromm to articulate his ideas is little more than an uninteresting fact about Fromm. Fromm's actual ideas are quite conventional ideas of freedom and authenticity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, I forgot to 'welcome' you back (to another sandbagging from little old me -- recovered from the last one yet?):


Vygotsky least so

Not quite! As we established a year or so ago, since he believed in this mysterious object/process, 'inner speech', as one of his founding principles, we can discount him as thoroughly confused.