redpill me on Freudo-Marxism
what are the key differences between Freudo-Marxism and other Marxist schools of thought?
redpill me on Freudo-Marxism
what are the key differences between Freudo-Marxism and other Marxist schools of thought?
Other urls found in this thread:
Freudian Marxists take a set of ideas that are meant to educate and liberate the people of the world, and they turn all that into obscurantist esotericism based on a pseudoscientific branch of psychology. There was a time when they were relevant, but they are today as legitimate as Soviet Lamarckian biologists.
Academia has abandoned Freud outside the historical context.
It really depends. Frankly besides Marcuse, it doesn't seem like there are that many strictly freuedian Marxist theorists. Even Walter Benjamin was more into Jung by the end.
My understanding, from just Benjamin, Zizek, and Marcuse alone really, is that they attempted to understand the processes of ideology and culture though psychoanalysis. It's pretty convenient that Marxism's base-superstructure parallels hard psychologist wiring-its expression.
Unless you're based Peter Gay and his disciples.
OP was asking about Freudians though.
No offense to , but does anyone here have anything interesting to say about Freudo-Marxism? You can get this pseud "blah, blah, Freud is wrong" from any sophomore psychology major. It mostly acts to valorize contemporary psychology at his expense, and it doesn't answer the OP at all. Most leftists today treat contemporary psychology with too much reverence, mostly because upwardly-mobile and college-educated people (which constitute most of the Western left) also treat it with reverence.
It's an image board. You can expect contrarianism, and it's important for there not to be a consensus.
The takes you're replying to are more substantial than that.
"Freud is irrelevant" doesn't mean that contemporary psychology is good.
Maybe not an answer you want, but those posts were answers.
Citation, please? The left is full of people who are rightly skeptical of contemporary psychology. It's full of ideology. The major problem being that it treats distress in response to a shit environment (capitalism) as the problem, rather than the shit environment.
It also comes from the fact that, unless you're in a Modern humanities course, or a course actually focused on Freud (extremely rare in the US) most people haven't read much of any psychoanalysis.
It's worth checking out. I mean we get the idea of Trauma from Freud, for fuck's sake.
But back to OP, I think a lot of more heavily materialists would see Freud's ideas as themselves being products of his conditions (he himself probably wouldn't have disagreed with this). I wonder if a lot of left critiques of psychoanalysis would mirror left critiques of cultural studies or media studies in general: not material enough.
The first just includes an accusation of obscurantism in addition to the usual "outdatedness" that you hear from supporters of modern psychology; the second isn't much beyond a statement about academia believing that "Freud is wrong."
The question was:
I guess my definition of "the left" is more exclusive or something. I don't consider "left-liberals" or social democrats to be left wing. For me the left wing starts with, like, mutualists.
sage for doublepost
Psychanalysis isn't that esoteric son, it's just badly documented in the anglo cannon
Marxism = Weaponized ideology to get idiots gentiles to enslave themselves
Freud = Complete hack who spent his whole life trolling the science world with his bizarre theories
Freudo-Marxism = Probably fine
I don't hate Freud all I was saying was that a lot of people get into fisticuffs about him especially third-wave feminists and "intersectionalists" whatever that shit means.
Thanks for your input reverend. Now fuck on back to Zig Forums
We'll send you to death camps before you can send us to death camps. It's what you deserve for planning to use death camps.
I've already fucked your mom and blacked your sister user.
I hope you enjoyed my sloppy seconds
I filled your mom's anus with my 12 inch cock
I bet your great grandad was a bad slave who always got beat
OP marx was an enlightenment philosopher
Your mom's my bad slave who I beat with my 12 inch cock that fills her anus
Voloshinov, Freudianism: a Marxist critique
Voloshinov, Freudianism: a Marxist critique
red pilled motherfucker
On repression and its role in Capitalism.
While on the subject of Marxian critiques of Freud, here's another: archive.org
Alrighty, I just finished this book, don't want to dedicate a special thread to it and believe this is the most fitting existing one: The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique by David "Wooswoos" North. Pretty good (★★★★☆), but not an encyclopedic work about the phenomenon (for instance, the Sokal Hoax isn't mentioned at all). Instead it's a collection of stuff published before on WSWS.org, with very minor changes, adding an index and a foreword. So if you got no money and don't feel a need for reading the intro – 25 pages of North dissing Syriza (that party's trajectory got accurately covered, even predicted, by WSWS) and also dissing some former comrades for how rarely they update their blog – you can go online instead.
The texts are "Plekhanov and the Tragedy of the Second International"; "Marxism, History & Socialist Consciousness"; "The Political and Intellectual Odyssey of Alex Steiner"; "The Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Pseudo-Left"; "The Science of Political Perspective"; a review/murder of Tom Rockmore's book "Marx After Marxism" (these are all by North); and appraisals of the philosopher Georgi Plekhanov by Leon Trotsky and Alexander Voronsky.
The second text takes up a big part of the book, it's a letter to former comrades Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner. It's a case of somebody being seriously mad and disappointed with two people you probably have never heard of – me neither, but I got a strong sense of déjà vu with the eclectic wishy-washy way these "Freudo-Marxists" argue and the names of thinkers that inspire them and people like them (Wilhelm Reich, Marcuse, Ernesto Laclau…). There's a common pattern among petit-bourg lefty types, a way of "theorizing" that is, as paradoxically that may sound, both remarkably opportunistic and unrealistic (soft on imperialism critique and even apologetic, praising mildly reformist movements as Rrrevolutionary while simultaneously being a wild utopian).
North writes in footnote 106 of the letter, let's say that again, footnote 106 of the letter (the letter itself is over a hundred pages):
It's example after example after example of weirdos doing weird thinking, an out-of-context quote used in a vain attempt to defend that, and North digging up what the actual context is and showing how silly they are. And after barely surviving an overdose of second-hand embarrassment, there comes the part with Rockmore and it's even more extreme. If you want to feel maximum cringe vibrating through every cell of your body for several hours, this book is for you.
Gotta be honest: don't see the problem with this quote. I mean part of the whole point of Communism is the "liberation of the senses". But I'll check it out.
the main difference is just macroing in dialec-dick into all of marx’s books
not OP but they're really not.
Ironic because Freud's entire career was pseudoscientific conjecture based on, and tested by nothing.
Here are your options, basically
Congrats, you ended up supporting contemporary biopolitics. Now take your meds and back in line with you.
Congrats, you just denied wast masses of people the help they need to alleviate their mental suffering. I really hope that your STEM solution to the mind is coming soon.
Congrats, you made it.
I'm not convinced you know what "irony" even means; the statements are not ironically contrasting. The problem isn't that the sophomoric statement is pseudoscientific conjecture; the problem is that it isn't even conjecture but regurgitation by someone who hasn't read anything by the author in question. You see it so often with communism as well, with chestnuts like "it's good in theory but bad in practice" and prattle that meanders to one sententious cliché after the next about "human nature" and "reality," as if deep thought had been invested in those views.
Regardless, no one asked or would care to hear from a know-nothing like yourself. Critical views (like ) can be interesting, but boring, low-effort posts like yours are just vaguely irritating to read.
What makes psychoanalysis 'pseudoscientific'? Even disregarding the fact that as a clinical practice it's effectiveness is falsifiable, Freud (at least tried to) support his theories by using the social studies and primitive neurology of his time, the bulk of his work can be subject to the scientific method even if not to straightforward empiric experiments, and a similar case can be made for Lacan.
For the very same reason it has abandoned (if it ever truly embraced) Marxism.
Really?! My (and his) eyes must be deceiving me (and him), then.
Yeah, man, Marx is shit but doesn't mean that the Austrian school of economics is good.
The major problem is that it doesn't treat jack shit. After neoliberal cuts and hastily pushed medical research (hint: lucrative and gigantic market) contemporary psychology has streamlined itself to a pill delivery system that creates more harm than it helps. They are ruining millions of lives globally by irreversibly altering people's brain chemistry. It's "scientificity" is akin to lobotomy and electro"therapy," but hey, it has lots of sciency sounding chemicals on the bottle and my doctor prescribed it, so it must be good.
It gets either vulgar materialist critiques (unfamiliarity with the mind-body-problem, to name one of their issues), but it can get idealist critiques as well (yo, we must treat the SOUL, dude). The most prevalent is the Foucaldian/Deleuzean critique, focusing on the "power relationships" in the clinic (as if a single type of clinic existed in all of the psycho- branches and branches within the branches). It gets most perverse when Deleuzeans try to conceptualize, say, a man having a psychotic breakdown as a self-inventing radical not beholden to society, while the person is actually going through intense suffering.
Takes this hot and radical shouldn't even be legal, dude. You teach classes or something?
The kind of feminists and social justice types that think that Marx was problematic white racist dude hate on Freud for similar reasons. They love to bring up how Freud thought that for a woman to reach maturity she must develop the ability to reach vaginal orgasm (as opposed to clitoral), because this proves that he was a patriarchal asshole or someshit.
Intersectionalists fucking EMBRACE the current psychiatric framework. What? There's an actual machine into which you can put people as inputs to get people with labels as outputs? OMG! I JUST FOUND OUT THAT I'M NOT JUST A BLACK LESBIAN WOMAN, I'M A BLACK LESBIAN AD/HD WOMAN!
SORRY, IT'S NOT ME, IT'S MY ADHD ACTING UP!
It's actually somewhat tragic how close this dude got to Lacan's linguistic turn, just to deny the legitimacy of the discipline as a whole. His rejection of the unconscious mirrors perfectly the contemporary approach to psychology.
The book title should be corrected to "The Failure of American Psychoanalysis", because it doesn't deal with Freud but what the Americans turned psychoanalysis into. It's like pretending that talking about Khrushchev is a critique in itself of Marx.
Read the Freud book by Frederick Crews.
You do realize that wooswoos is the worst place you can go if you want to read about the humanities, right? The level of competency in the field (yes, guess what, you need competency in, say, enlightenment philosophy to critique Spinoza, just like you need competency in evolutionary biology to critique Dawkins' reductionist evolutionary theory) is so low it's actually embarrassing to read their shit.
If you honestly don't see how this is the left-wing version of the alt-right's "Cultural Marxism = Postmodernism = Humanities = etc." bullshit you are beyond hope. Only people read shit like this who want an easy alibi for not reading original – or at least competent – works from a field.
Yes, I'm saying you are spreading ignorance. Good job.
No, the worst place is in the humanities.
Or at least that's what my enlightened professor said to me, and, hey, if our professors encourage us to read less that's obviously a sign that we really moved on and not that there are class aspects tied to this topic. The two things I got from university: don't read original works, and always blindly accept my professor's word as coming from God.
At least you declared your agenda for once.
You know what's weird, given all your talk about other people being ignorant? What I have never seen is even an atom of Marxist posting on this board coming from a cigarposter.
And add to your online order a copy of The Black Book of Communism while you're at it.
I counted, for you. I use 28 flags, dude. Here, have a FREE demo of my posting history:
What's wrong with Crews' book? I'm sure you have read it in the minutes between its appearance in this thread and your answer here and this is not just your butthurt reaction to the blurb on libgen 🧐
damn man, really the material conditions of chore countries can obfuscate the truth for those who inhabit them
Yeah my dudes, living a life like Freud is a healthy alternative to that:
>Freud’s enthusiastic endorsement—and use of—cocaine, Crews contends, had a much greater consequence for the theory of psychoanalysis than is officially recognized. It was not a soon-to-be-discarded “youthful indiscretion,” as Ernest Jones called it in his official 1957 biography of Freud, for Freud continued to use cocaine regularly, almost daily, not just occasionally, for some 15 years. Crews details Freud’s early experiments with the substance, and documents his disastrous attempt to help ease his best friend Fleischl’s withdrawal from morphine addiction by means of injections of cocaine. Meant as a kindness, it became the opposite, as Freud ignored every sign that it was not working and was blatantly harming his friend instead. Later, Freud dishonestly claimed to have cured Fleischl, when in fact his friend tragically deteriorated while undergoing Freud’s treatment, and finally died in great pain with two addictions instead of one: morphine and cocaine.
* a wild ad hominem appears *
* skeptic.com *
>criticizes contemporary psychology in contrast to Freud for pushing mind-altering substances
🧑🏼? I don't think so.
fucking redditor GTFO
The fifteen years in question, throughout which Freud used and recommended cocaine was
1) in the historical context of not yet understanding scientifically (like now) the effects of cocaine – your sources project back our current understanding and conclude that, DURR, FREUD DUMB (this is called ahistoricity). Freud was in the environment of his contemporary psychiatry out of which he desperately tried to escape;
2) in his personal period wherein Freud was still employed as a psychiatrist. This discipline itself was in its primitive days. Freud's invention (or introduction of) psychoanalysis marks the very break with said discipline. For one thing, after his "epistemological break" with psychiatry, Freud advocated for the utilization of – what he called – "the talking cure," meaning that psychological problems must be, and can only be effectively alleviated through the medium of speech, free association, the produced slips and their questioning, and so on. You will not find a single recommendation from Freud to his patients after he begin developing psychoanalysis, to start using cocaine, in other words;
3) your dubious (yellow press, rather) sources' whole aim is to discredit Freud by looking at his personal life, trying to discredit him by stating that he 'sharted out this BS theory of psychoanalysis while being on drugs'. May I remind you that one of (if not the) most important mathematician of the 20th century, Paul Erdős, was an amphetamine addict his entire life? Does this discredit him? I don't think so. Freud using cocaine BEFORE the scientific understanding of addiction and coming off of the stuff from his own volition and by finding out its adverse affects ultimately prove his intelligence;
4) You, in your shitty retort, try to compare the whole industry of contemporary big pharma's profit oriented genocide of people with mental problems to a 19th century man experimenting on the cutting edge of his contemporary science. I already provided a video explaining this, and naturally you don't bother to respond to it;
5) It takes ten times the effort from me to *debunk* your rational/skeptic/etc. links from fedora-tier *debunking sites* – which use the same methods against Marx, mind you – than your trolling content of posting links which do not actually engage the actual content of thinkers, but resort to surface "criticism".
Go suck a dick, you under-read pseud.
But the Freud haters aren't comparing Freud to other notorious quacks of Freud's time and find him lacking (I suppose one can make a good argument for Freud>Rudolf Steiner, but I'm also not terribly impressed by that achievement), nor are they comparing him to more broadly accepted mainstream science of that time, they find him lacking from today's point of view.
NO U are the one who has trouble thinking straight about history. As if more ignorance could have prevented what happened to the Radium Girls. Cocaine fucks with your brain no matter which timeline you're in. You talk here as if we lived in a cartoon and you could just walk on air as long as you don't look down.
Frederick Crews read Freud in the original German, both official works and private correspondence, and wrote a book with over twenty pages of notes. Have you actually read the book, yes or no?
Have you read the book by Frederick Crews, yes or no?
you are a hipster, you have a wall blanket, you smoke pipe, you drink obscure drinks and you lust after your mom but you also hate capitalism because you read the communist manifesto once
Is Jungian-Marxism a thing? If so is it better than Freudo-Marxism?
okay but can you say that in english, please?
There is non-pseudoscientific psychology?
From Crews' book:
>In quoting published materials that were translated from German, such as James Strachey’s Standard Edition of Freud’s complete psychological writings, I have occasionally preferred a more literal translation, especially where it makes a substantive difference of meaning. Every such change is indicated in the citation.
>>Now, this Jew talked in the same way as I had heard thousands of others talk before, even in Freiberg. His very face seemed familiar—he was typical. So was the boy, with whom he discussed religion. He was cut from the cloth from which fate makes swindlers when the time is ripe: cunning, mendacious, kept by his adoring relatives in the belief that he is a great talent, but unprincipled and without character.… I have enough of this riffraff [Gesindel]. In the course of the conversation I learned that Madame Jewess and family hailed from Meseritsch: the proper compost-heap for this sort of weed.18
18 9/18/72; Freud 1969, p. 420; translation modified. Meseritsch was a Czech town that had contained an independent Jewish community since the seventeenth century.
1 2/7/73; Freud 1969, p. 422.
2 2/27/75; The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein: 1871–1881, pp. 92, 93.
3 Ibid., p. 93.
Freud confirmed Nazbol Gang.
Freud was a massive cokehead, take him with a grain of salt, good prose writer though
Cocaine stuff from Crews' Freud book:
>By the time he wrote to Martha, Freud had been further emboldened by a number of articles in back issues of a Detroit magazine called the Therapeutic Gazette. The most influential of those items was an 1880 submission from Dr. W. H. Bentley, who reported that, over a number of years, he had alleviated various ailments, from dyspepsia to tuberculosis, with “erythoxolon coca”—more properly Erythroxylon coca, or cocaine.13 And one claim in particular, for a reason that will become clear, couldn’t have failed to electrify Freud. Bentley asserted that, using cocaine supplied by the American firm Parke, Davis & Co., he had repeatedly curbed both morphine and alcohol dependency without putting new addictions in their place (…) Apparently, Freud found nothing worrisome in such a procedure. He was reassured, no doubt, by the fact that no fewer than sixteen articles in the Therapeutic Gazette had declared cocaine to be both safe and efficacious. Freud either didn’t notice or didn’t care that the Gazette, far from being a legitimate medical journal, was in fact a house organ of Detroit’s own Parke, Davis pharmaceutical firm. Indeed, the listed editor was none other than the company’s owner, George S. Davis.
13 Freud: Cocaine Papers, pp. 15–19.
The "Brautbriefe" that the following refers to are the letters between Freud and his future wife Martha.
>Given his apparent ignorance of cocaine prior to April 1884, the speed with which he acquired an air of expertise is surprising. According to another Brautbrief, he completed his comprehensive-seeming essay “On Coca” a mere two months after mentioning that he had just been introduced to cocaine by reading Aschenbrandt and Bentley.19 By July 1 the paper had appeared in the Centralblatt für die Gesamte Therapie.20 Twenty-five pages long, and laden with seventy-eight footnotes citing the literature in several languages, it recounted Freud’s own sanguine observations while touching with a knowledgeable air on every aspect of the drug’s history, uses, and apparently minor limitations (…) Freud’s expert-looking references were mostly lifted, without investigation, from an 1883 Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General’s Office of the United States Army.
19 6/19/84; Brautbriefe, 3:411.
20 Freud 1884c.
>Freud’s hyperactive state when assembling his fortnight’s-worth of skimming resulted in an extraordinary number of inaccuracies. He transcribed the Surgeon-General’s bibliography erroneously, misstating names, dates, titles, and places of publication. His reference form was inconsistent, resulting in no fewer than five ways of specifying one periodical, the shady Therapeutic Gazette. Even his chemical formula for cocaine was imprecise; and when he “corrected” it in his second paper, he got it wrong again.
>At various points “On Coca” hinted that its author possessed a long and judicious familiarity with cocaine and its effects. “Time and again” (zu wiederholten Malen), wrote Freud, as if looking back on many years of pharmaceutical experience, he had relieved his colleagues’ stomach problems with cocaine.22 Copious experience with patients could also be inferred from his endorsement of cocaine regimens to intervene against depression, heart problems, and “all diseases which involve degeneration of the tissues.”*
22 Cocaine Papers, p. 66; Schriften über Kokain, p. 71.
A thread about Freudo-Marxism and psychoanalysis is personalized into being about Freud himself. This reminds me of when people talk about Mao's disgusting personal habits as a way to refute Mao, or say that "Marx never worked a real job!" or something like that, as if (supposing it were actually true) it would matter in the least to Marxism or communism.
It's a form of dialogue meant to outrage us about the individual based on contemporary mores and values rather than engage with the theory in question.
Mao is said to have had badly stained teeth from all the green tea, it's not relevant to his life as a political thinker (and doer). But surely one would be suspicious of advice about dental care from someone with teeth like that. The coke thing about Freud mentioned above would not mean much if he had dedicated his life to e.g. astrophysics and produced good results in that field. The coke thing is directly relevant because it shows him as careless and cocky. And it's not the only such story, not just some episode in his life with no connection to the rest, he continued with exaggerations and downright making up things about how well things went with his patients.
Then you're projecting back medical knowledge onto the past that was not as clear at the time. During the 19th and early 20th century, cocaine was used in many over-the-counter remedies and was relatively well-regarded for its efficacy in pain treatment.
Psychopharmacology wasn't his specialty, and no one looks to Freud for advice on cocaine regardless. He promoted cocaine avidly, but his promotion of it wasn't entirely out of step with establishment psychology at the time.
This is such a stupid and dishonest conversation in the first place. You're attacking Freud (as a person) as a proxy for attacking psychoanalysis (as a field). Even if it were shown that Freud had been caught snorting coke off the tits of one of his sleeping patients, this discussion would remain fundamentally tedious, stuck at the low level of "this person is a bad guy."
Pretty sure it was already well known at the time that when publishing as a scientist, you should not exaggerate how much experience you have and list sources you haven't all actually read, and that you should not be naive about puff pieces talking about products published by the very firms making those.
wOw, MaThEmAtIcS dEbUnKeD
What a shit political/theological understanding.
What a freeloading hippy!
TL;DR: I debunked math
Want me to make one about Marx too?
No, it wasn't. Cocaine was seen as a good substitute for coffee, and people advocated it for lots of illnesses.
Why is that meme still take seriously.
the only thing not taken seriously here is your fedora-tier understanding of the supposed topic at hand
Look! A post that is on topic! Let's shame him!
Freudo-Marxism isn't a unified school of thought, but rather a set of heterogeneous theories that try to employ both Psychoanalysis and Marxism as critiques of capitalist society.
Some try to unify Marxism and Psychoanalysis (Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse); others, like Louis Althusser and people influenced by him (Ernesto Laclau, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek), maintain Psychoanalysis and Marxism as separate theories, but use both together, as one would use two separate sciences to analyse multiple points of view of a single phenomenon.
As such, it'd be quite difficult to simply "redpill you" about the key differences between Freudo-Marxism and other Marxist schools of thought. One would need to sum up, first of all, the key differences between the various freudo-marxists, and then compare each of them to the other Marxist schools of thought.
I don't like Reich, for example (he's too vitalistic, and took a turn for pseudoscience and obscurantism during the later half of his life), and I have never read Marcuse.
I'm mostly a Lacano-Marxist (a marxist influenced by Jacques Lacan's version of psychoanalysis), which is quite different in many ways both from "orthodox psychoanalysis" and other schools of psychoanalysis.
You'd do well to read some introductions about Lacan, Althusser, Badiou and Žižek.
Other authors that are either Freudo-Marxists, or were heavily influenced by them, are Mark Fisher, Judith Butler, Fredric Jameson, Christian Dunker and Vladimir Safatle.
That post did not criticize Freud for having a particularly dumb opinion about cocaine relative to the time he had lived in, but for 1. giving an exaggerated impression about the amount of experience he had with the drug (two months in reality), 2. lifting sources from somewhere else and not reading them all, 3. referring multiple times to the shill pieces in Therapeutic Gazette (owned by a cocaine-selling company) like a serious source.
Étienne Balibar was influenced by Louis Althusser, but is a Spinozist-Marxist rather than a classic Hegelian Marxist, like most of us are.
Gilles Deleuze was heavily influenced by Lacan (although refusing many of his theories), but is a Spinozist-Marxist too, and strongly rejects Hegel. Michael Hardt and Toni Negri were influenced by Deleuze.
Judith Butler and Mark Fisher were influenced both by the Hegelian Lacano-Marxists (Althusser, Badiou, Žižek) and by Spinozists (Deleuze) and non-marxists (Foucault, Derrida), so they're hybrid authors. Fisher is quite upfront about his Marxism and anticapitalism, Butler isn't that much.
As such, try to read about these authors, and then you'll have a general idea about Freudo-Marxism.
Add Jodi Dean and Adrian Johnston to that list.
Freud's research into how a certain drug affects muscle strength and reflexes:
>>I repeatedly carried out on myself, or had carried out [on me], these two series of experiments. I realize that such self-researches have the shortcoming, for the person who conducts them, of claiming two kinds of believability in the same matter. But I had to proceed in this way for external reasons [aus äußeren Gründen] and because none of the individuals at my disposal showed such a regular reaction to cocaine [as my own]. The results of the investigation were, however, also confirmed through my testing of other persons, mostly colleagues.20
15 Freud 1885a.
20 Cocaine Papers, pp. 98–99; SK, p. 91; translation modified.
but wait, there is more:
22 Cocaine Papers, p. 101; SK, p. 94; translation modified.
thf most of the "disgusting personal habits" of Mao are made up. Like the myth that he had 15 year old concubines.
That's literally how "ad hominem" was defined in Ancient Rome: If a smoker tells you that smoking is bad he's wrong. Plus, how is this a refutation of "you would take advice from Marx with a grain of salt considering he cared about workers but never worked a day in his life".
Tomorrow I'll stop listening to Burzum because Varg is a Nazi.
Marx worked as a journalist and author. He got paid writing for the New York Daily Tribune, he also got paid for writing Capital.
It's absurd to have a general taboo about criticizing people. Crews doesn't criticize Freud for being a brony or whatever, the criticism is directly related to Freud's pretensions of doing scientific work. Just RTFB already.
Freud was actually exceptional, and in ways a more genuine researcher than a lot of modern psychologists. I mean he got a lot of stuff wrong, but he also had a good intuitive sense of human behavior and a genuine curiosity to build it around.
That's how they would put it on Kiwifarms.
Oh wait, you are serious. Freud tried to cure morphine addiction with cocaine (that's not the bad part) and it didn't work (also not the really bad part) and then the patient got addicted to both morphine and cocaine (that's bad, but it gets worse), Freud then still shilled for curing morphine addiction with cocaine, claiming that it worked on his patient.
Is there a way to fit Lacan into a Spinoza-Marxist framework or is Deleuze's interpretations the only existing "Spinozist reading" of Lacan
Imagine being this guy.
Althusser. Miles better than Deleuze, IMO, especially if you want your communist theory to be actually applicable to communist praxis.
disregarding all theory coming from "problematic" individuals is retarded and liberal tier.
any chance you might post the names of the books you recommend? seems like that mirror is down.
Which of his works would you recommend reading and any particular order to make it easier to approach? His Ideology and State Apparatus and works on aleatory materialism seem really interesting
Requesting Jodi Dean's UFO book!
Start with "For Marx" move onto "Machiavelli and us" and finish with "Latest essays," just make sure to read Warren Montag's "Althusser and His Contemporaries: Philosophy's Perpetual War"…
Thanks muke, that's exactly what I meant.
The Making of an Illusion, Chapters 11 and 12, deal with the influence Jean-Martin Charcot and his hypnosis experiments at the Salpêtrière had on Freud.
25 Harrington 1988, pp. 31–33.
26 Hacking 1995, pp. 172–173; Nicolas 2004, pp. 19–20.
31 Delboeuf 1886, p. 258.
32 Ibid., p. 124.
>Freud’s expertise, however, was that of a conformist who, notably unlike Delboeuf, had completely overlooked the fallaciousness of Charcot’s procedures. At the Salpêtrière, he had peripherally served an enterprise in which four kinds of factors were conjoining to produce examinable symptoms: the preexisting medical conditions of the inmates, the culture of the wards, the expectations of the indoctrinated medical team for reinforcement of Charcot’s theory, and the carrot-and-stick extension of those expectations into incentives for compliance. A whole sociology of meretricious “knowledge production” in coercive circumstances could have been inferred from a clear-minded analysis of that spectacle (…) The Frenchman’s power over his hysterics actually thrilled Freud and aroused his envy. Thus, when he succeeded at last in ingratiating himself with le maître, “I have only to say one word to Charcot,” he gloated in a letter of February 1886, “and I can do whatever I like with the patients.”42
As an outsider, Freud probably took little advantage of that license. That he savored it, however, indicates his solidarity with Charcot in regarding the Salpêtrière’s inmates as less than fully human subjects. Not once, so far as we can tell, did he consider whether their welfare was being served by the daily humiliations to which they were subjected. Nor, then, necessarily, did he question whether Charcot’s recourse to hypnotism—that overpowering of one mind by another—was the best means of probing for the wellspring of hysteria. The practice, insofar as Freud could master it, would become his own chosen means of inquiry, with results that, like Charcot’s, would be dictated not by psychological insight but by the suggestive imparting of presuppositions. He was digging himself a deep hermeneutic pit—one from which, as we will see, he would never be able to emerge.