I've just finished reading "Marxism and Psychoanalysis" by Reuben Osborn (apparently a fake name, as I can't find an obituary for him even though he should be 100 by now) and I've read a good amount of Freud's introductory lectures and a bit of Lacan (who I don't find as compelling as Freud) and I have to say, it is very interesting and easily reconcilable with Marxist theory.
But perhaps most familiar to us all is the bourgeois mind which all the barbs of Socialist logic fail to pierce. The comfortable thought habits, underlying which are unconscious emotional trends, serve to protect the mind from disturbing ideas. The Socialist case permeates, as it were, through a medium of pre-existing emotional habits of thought, which distorts the significance of every idea expressed by the Socialist. And any detail which is really of little importance, if it seems to provide a peg upon which to hang objections, is seized upon eagerly and magnified beyond proportion. Thus we have those arguments, so exhaustive of the Socialist's patience, regarding the difficulties of apportioning dirty work, the irreconcilability of human nature to Socialism, etc. The careful explanations of the Socialists never get beyond the most superficial layer of the bourgeois mind, which is busy seeking other defence-reactions in the place of those which Socialist logic is breaking down.
And among those bourgeois who do embrace Socialism too often are those who do so because it affords an excuse to indulge in some eccentricity symptomatic of repressed impulses, denied expression in polite bourgeois society and disguising itself as a burning desire to emancipate the working class.
There are, of course, many exceptions to this. A well-developed ego enabling the individual to behave on a high level of rationality would tend to lead such bourgeois to identification with the working class, as representing the forces of progress. None the less, other factors which are inevitably associated with a revolutionary movement-revolt against sexual standards, artistic and literary orthodoxy-attract exhibitionists of all kinds, cranks and faddists who find a comfortable home in the movement to display their peculiarities. A revolutionary
movement is necessarily a movement of protest. It denounces vigorously the existing system of society, and all the possessors of disgruntled souls, with their own private little grievances and indignations arising from some particular feature only of modern society, find, in the general revolutionary protest, some solace. That is why we find so many" Marxists" who really are not interested in Marxism, who have
never troubled to get beyond a few well-worn formulre: who delight to rant and rave, and, indeed, because of their excessive noise, impress their fellow members with their extreme "sincerity," build a reputation of being good fighters in the class struggle, and become, even, leading
I referred in an earlier chapter to the irrational compulsions which are part of the emotional life of revolutionaries. They are due to an unconscious revolt against the super-ego, and very often lead to action out of harmony with objective circumstances, but which enables an expression of superego revolt. Lenin described those revolutionaries whose main tactics consisted in fierce denunciations of Parliament and Labour leaders as suffering from an "infantile disorder" of" left-wing" Communism.
That description is particularly apt, because the childish tantrums and tempers by which the rebellious feelings towards the father are displayed are likewise indulged in towards the authoritative forces of society.
Link to Freud and Marx by the same author here: thecharnelhouse.org
What are leftypol's takes on psychoanalysis?