cont.
Well, this is a rather naive conception, innit? For sure we've seen alt-righters with 2GB collection of black dick pic/video collections. But to attack the heart of the matter: where is this supposed "repression"? If you look at Freud's or Lacan's conception of repression – something that is constitutive of neurosis – you'll find a different picture. Moreover, I must proclaim the following: the nazis/alt-right are made up by buncha' perverts, as far as psychoanalytic clinical categories go.
This brings us to another point or problematic: detecting the "problem". For Freud and Lacan there are three possible psychological subjectivities: psychotics, perverts, and neurotics. "Repression" is indicative of neurosis. Fun fact: neurotics are the only people occupying subjective positions that can become revolutionary.
Is this not where the theorist's ALARM BELL goes off? "Mass individual?" … An oxymoron sounds good on paper, but ffs, lets keep it on the ground. >le stirnerites
This is an old libertarian meme: we have our sexual/gender/identitarian/group/etc. problems due to >authoritarianism. I hope that my above posts clarified or at least contextualized such simplified statements…
We've already seen that there was nothing "natural" in human sexuality.
This is properly anti-Freudian and shall I say, anti-materialist. There's no "human nature proper" which is betrayed by modern life, specifically. Human sexuality has always been 'problematic' throughout our collective history. There never was a "harmonic point", to put it differently!
As a Leninist I must make clear how this is an example of an epic non-sequitur. Our specific socio-historical condition doesn't pervert our sexuality, quite to the contrary, our always already perverted (un-natural) sexuality adjusts itself to our current socio-historical condition. When I said that these people (Reich, Jung) were idealists (non-materialists, that is) I was alluding to these kinds of theoretical missteps, exactly. Also of note: "Natural aggression" – what the fuck is this shit? But back to Lenin: are you (thru Reich) seriously trying to suggest that imperialism is due to humanity's psychological inclinations?!
TL;DR: Reich's proposed model of: natural aggression → sadism → imperialism is pure non-materialist idealism…
Well, yes, and no. Everything from playing Pokemon games, through shopping, to voting in "democratic elections" is libidinous… The reason ciwhy Reich feels like circumscribing "imperialism" to the libido is a mystery! Keep in mind, though, that a proper communist movement is militant! There's no going around this fact. If you dislike this, well, you are a liberal. Sorry to break the spell for you…
Not even Freud would be so reductive (everything is due to our childhood).
So to sum up: while Jung was a conservative deviation from Freud, Reich was a liberal one. Both were anti-materialist. (I could go on, but let's see where this thread goes eventually.)