Freudo-Marxism

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

I don't seem to be able to find much information on this tendency in Marxist theory, though I am (obviously) interested in works of Karl Marx as well as the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud. From what I understand, it is an attempted "dialectical synthesis" of Marxist theory and Freudian psychoanalysis undertaken by the Frankfurt School, though this doesn't tell me much about it as a distinct tendency. I'm also aware of the concept of commodities and sexual fetishism being synthesised to create the idea of "commodity fetishism", and I understand this quite well as it is fairly rudimentary.

If anyone knows anything about this, I'd be intrigued to know more.

BONUS QUESTION: What would be the Left Communist viewpoint on Freudo-Marxism, and if it is a positive one do they see it as useful in communist theory?

[Comrade #138672]

I wouldn't say it is a tendency. More like a method of analysis. Combining Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis.

Any tendency can apply this.

[Art Vandelay]

Freudo-Marxism isn't really a tendency, but rather a sort of umbrella term used to designate a few forms of critical theory that attempt to synthesize Freudian psychoanalysis with the philosophy and critique of political economy espoused by Marx. I'm not so sure there would be a 'left-communist stance' on psychoanalysis and its potential relationship with Marxism, but I do believe that the ICC has written some stuff on it and has a positive view overall.

If you're interested in reading some works that could be associated with 'freudo-marxism' (for lack of a better term), then your best bet would be to start with the frankfurt school. People like Reich, Fromm, Marcuse (particularily eros and civilization - although reason and revolution is probably his best book out of the ones that I've read), Horkheimer, Adorno (I want to get my hands on a copy of negnative dialectics quite badly, but it's so damn expensive to order), etc...from there you could move onto Althusser (who based his re-reading of Marx on Lacan's re-reading of Freud) and Zizek (particularily the sublime object of ideology). I'd suggest doing a solid reading of Freud's main works before moving onto any of the thinkers I mentioned above. To be clear, I'd caution that - in my opinion - these folks offer up a dead end politically; they're certainly interesting, but should be approached without illusions and as hobbyist literature.

Trotsky was another Marxist who took a rather positive view towards psychoanalysis. It's probably hard to come by - and my copy is stored away with the rest of my books at the moment - but if you can ever get your hands on 'Trotsky's notebooks: 33-35' he makes a number of comments on psychoanalysis, as well as Pavlov, Darwin, and Mendeleev. I'll leave you with a quote of his:


Marxist criticism in science must be not only vigilant but also prudent, otherwise it can degenerate into mere sycophancy...Take psychology even. Pavlov's reflexology proceeds entirely along the paths of dialectical materialism. It conclusively breaks down the wall between physiology and psychology. The simplest reflex is physiological, but a system of reflexes gives us ‘consciousness'. The accumulation of physiological quantity gives a new ‘psychological' quality. The method of Pavlov's school is experimental and painstaking. Generalisations are won step by step: from the saliva of dogs to poetry, that is, to the mental mechanics of poetry, not its social content - though the paths that bring us to poetry have as yet not been revealed.

The school of the Viennese psychoanalyst Freud proceeds in a different way. It assumes in advance that the driving force of the most complex and delicate of psychic processes is a physiological need. In this general sense it is materialistic, if you leave aside the question whether it does not assign too big a place to the sexual factor at the expense of others, for this is already a dispute within the frontiers of materialism. But the psychoanalyst does not approach problems of consciousness experimentally, going from the lowest phenomena to the highest, from the simple reflex to the complex reflex; instead, he attempts to take all these intermediate stages in one jump, from above downwards, from the religious myth, the lyrical poem, or the dream, straight to the physiological basis of the psyche.

The idealists tell us that the psyche is an independent entity, that the ‘soul' is a bottomless well. Both Pavlov and Freud think that the bottom of the ‘soul' is physiology. But Pavlov, like a diver, descends to the bottom and laboriously investigates the well from there upwards, while Freud stands over the well and with a penetrating gaze tries to pierce its ever-shifting and troubled waters and to make out or guess the shape of the things down below. Pavlov's method is experimental; Freud's is conjecture, sometimes fantastic conjecture. The attempt to declare psychoanalysis ‘incompatible' with Marxism and simply turn one's back on Freudianism is too simple, or, more accurately, too simplistic. But we are in any case not obliged to accept Freudianism. It is a working hypothesis that can produce and undoubtedly does produce deductions and conjectures that proceed along the liens of materialist psychology. The experimental procedure in due course will provide the tests for these conjectures. But we have no grounds and no right to a ban upon the other procedures which, even though it may be less reliable, yet tries to anticipate the conclusions to which the experimental procedure is advancing only very slowly.

[OGG]

I view psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. I don't know anything about Freudo-Marxism.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

I view psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. I don't know anything about Freudo-Marxism.

Many people view dialectical materialism the same way, and as is the case with the former it usually stems from an incomplete understanding of the topic - though obviously even with a better understanding both could seem pseudo-scientific. I personally take the view that psychoanalysis can be extremely useful, and doubly so when done using Marxist critique and philosophy.

[blake 3:17]

Fromm, Reich and Marcuse are associated with this. I enjoyed Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man and Marcuse's Eros and Civilization. I've rough ideas about Reich, but never read him.

The Surrealists embraced Freud and Marx in a much more creative way than goes beyond silly theory. Andre Breton saw the rationality in Hysteria -- he was a First War physician and recognized the rationality in shell shock.