marx and freud?

[mutualaid]

Yall got any opinions? I enjoyed Marcuse's eros and civilization, but I'm looking for more.

[Sewer Socialist]

I enjoyed Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving. He is one of the earlier Freudo-Marxists, influencial on the later ones AFAIK.

There's also Deleuze & Guattari, who write some really weird shit including what is sort of a weird drugged out version of lifestylist evolutionary socialism, but I think they also have a really enjoyable and relateable writing style.

[DOOM]

I enjoyed Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving. He is one of the earlier Freudo-Marxists, influencial on the later ones AFAIK.

There's also Deleuze & Guattari, who write some really weird shit including what is sort of a weird drugged out version of lifestylist evolutionary socialism, but I think they also have a really enjoyable and relateable writing style.

Dolce & Gabbana weren't quite fond of psychoanalysis and introduced schizoanalysis in Anti-Oedipus. And their talk about socialism and anti-capitalism seems to be nothing more than lip-service, which is typical for post-structuralists.

[mutualaid]

And their talk about socialism and anti-capitalism seems to be nothing more than lip-service, which is typical for post-structuralists.

I agree with this assessment about the so-called post structuralists; there's something about academia that has a way of destroying or disarming genuinely revolutionary thought.

[Rafiq]

Most post structuralists take anti capitalism as a given, that's why.

Their work begins with the axiom of a critique of capitalist society.

[mutualaid]

Most post structuralists take anti capitalism as a given, that's why.

Their work begins with the axiom of a critique of capitalist society.

that's fair, I frankly haven't read enough post structuralism to comment on it; I wouldn't mind reading some 'post structuralist' literature (fiction), but I'm not sure what that would even look like - does it exist?

edit: maybe calvino?

[DOOM]

Most post structuralists take anti capitalism as a given, that's why.

Their work begins with the axiom of a critique of capitalist society.

Isn't this precisely the problem, if we consider Marx's critique of political economy to be the logical end of the analysis of capitalist society?

[Rafiq]

Isn't this precisely the problem, if we consider Marx's critique of political economy to be the logical end of the analysis of capitalist society?

Marx made no such pretenses to understanding every aspect capitalist society in the most thorough fashion imaginable. Marx lived and offered the most thorough understanding of capitalism as the standards of understanding capitalism back then were concerned - nay, he greatly exceeded those standards and still manages to surprise us today. Marx offered us a method, a tradition, which began with the critique of political economy (which is also is an axiom that most post-structuralists engage in, in fact the whole point is taking it to its fullest conclusion), but Marx made no pretenses to being a psychologist, to understanding the fullest extent of sexuality in capitalism, among other things.

Not that he couldn't have. It's just that he did not have the time to dedicate his life to these things.

Marxism involves the active process of understanding capitalist society. No single book or tome will suffice in substituting an active understanding capitalism across generations. To leave Capital as the final word on any understanding of capitalism disservices Marx insofar as it silences his ghost across generations. What would Marx have to say about capitlaist society in 2015? What would Marx have to say about capitalism in the mid 20th century, what would he have to say about cognitivism and biological determinism? We must assume this role.

[Rafiq]

I want to add though, because it is such an important topic: the necessity of such "intellectualizing" today is owed to the sophistication of bourgeois ideology in general, as opposed to its inception during Marx's time when the remnants of the ancien regime were still being fought.

Take "the working man has no country" for example. In the 19th century this was not such a trauamatic statement becuase states and countries were being born and destroyed over night. The provisionality of the state, in all its violence, was made bare to all already.

In the early 20th century, during the golden age of Marxism, the ideological coordinates of Communism were spontaneous to the first Marxists. This is a topic I hope to explore in the future: ideological spontaneity among the socialist intelligentsia and why it is lacking today, why we can never be hopeful in our own spontaneous ideological impulses. Critical theory offers the solution to this, including post-structuralism.

[mutualaid]

I want to add though, because it is such an important topic: the necessity of such "intellectualizing" today is owed to the sophistication of bourgeois ideology in general, as opposed to its inception during Marx's time when the remnants of the ancien regime were still being fought.

Take "the working man has no country" for example. In the 19th century this was not such a trauamatic statement becuase states and countries were being born and destroyed over night. The provisionality of the state, in all its violence, was made bare to all already.

In the early 20th century, during the golden age of Marxism, the ideological coordinates of Communism were spontaneous to the first Marxists. This is a topic I hope to explore in the future: ideological spontaneity among the socialist intelligentsia and why it is lacking today, why we can never be hopeful in our own spontaneous ideological impulses. Critical theory offers the solution to this, including post-structuralism.

That's interesting. I just worry that critical theory has become the form of ideology it seeks to undermine. What do you mean "spontaneous"? That sounds ahistorical, but assume it's not?

[Rafiq]

That's interesting. I just worry that critical theory has become the form of ideology it seeks to undermine. What do you mean "spontaneous"? That sounds ahistorical, but assume it's not?

By spontaneous I mean, the underlying ideology of Communism as was adopted by, say, Bolsheviks, early anarchists, whatever you want - this came spontaneously in the sense that they didn't have to think twice about sacrificing their lives for it, it was taken as a given for them, not something they had to reflect upon consciously, etc.

Ideology is exactly what is not openly said - it is that which is designated. Leftists today love to take the words of early Marxists as the ends-all of what drove them, but there is an ideological context here that today's Leftists are unable to see. You have authors like Lars Lih who explore such ideological dimensions (albeit superficially) more acutely: Focusing on the (almost religious like) "mission" aspect of early organizational models, etc.

We don't have the same privilege today.

[DOOM]

Marx made no such pretenses to understanding every aspect capitalist society in the most thorough fashion imaginable. Marx lived and offered the most thorough understanding of capitalism as the standards of understanding capitalism back then were concerned - nay, he greatly exceeded those standards and still manages to surprise us today. Marx offered us a method, a tradition, which began with the critique of political economy (which is also is an axiom that most post-structuralists engage in, in fact the whole point is taking it to its fullest conclusion), but Marx made no pretenses to being a psychologist, to understanding the fullest extent of sexuality in capitalism, among other things.

Not that he couldn't have. It's just that he did not have the time to dedicate his life to these things.

Marxism involves the active process of understanding capitalist society. No single book or tome will suffice in substituting an active understanding capitalism across generations. To leave Capital as the final word on any understanding of capitalism disservices Marx insofar as it silences his ghost across generations. What would Marx have to say about capitlaist society in 2015? What would Marx have to say about capitalism in the mid 20th century, what would he have to say about cognitivism and biological determinism? We must assume this role.

What I ment is that because of Marx's critique of bourgeois socialism and his analysis of capitalism, anti-capitalism needs to be formulated through the lense of marxism if the post-structuralists are serious about their anti-capitalism, unless socialism and anti-capitalism are abstractions in their minds. This doesn't mean that we can't expand upon marxist theory, using the insights we made in various fields such as psychology and sociology.

[RedMaterialist]

If ideology, culture, etc. are the product of a specific type of economic structure, then how to explain the appearance of post-structuralism, post-modernism in the 70s and 80s in terms of historical materialism? One of the fundamental ideas of post-modernism is that there are no meta-narratives, no more big theories of history, no overriding moral or cultural value. In fact, all values are equally valid, individuals decide for themselves whether any social product has any value. Ironically, the straight, white, Western male is no longer the social arbiter of value.

Value as defined by the subjective judgment of the individual. What is this but the theory of marginal utility applied to culture?

Commodities are more and more being produced by machines and robots. These commodities thus have less and less exchange value until finally there is no exchange value left, only the use value defined as the value each individual places on the commodity. The next step is the disappearance of the monetary expression of exchange value, price.

[keine_zukunft]

Any way man the book you need is fromm's breaking the chains of illusion: my encounter with marx and freud..fromm really does interpret the theories of both very well and ties them together well. he also shows where they differ too but it's a good beginners freudian marxist book

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yall got any opinions? I enjoyed Marcuse's eros and civilization, but I'm looking for more.

Fuck Freud, read more Stanley Milgram and B F Skinner dawg

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1403550976l/676723.jpg

^this book taught me more than 10+ Freudo-Marxist works