• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Freud, Marx and more

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
What do you think of theorists like Freud and Marx? If their theories have been exposed as reductivist or dated do they still have any value at all?
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
Very different theorists, why are you lumping them into the same category? because of the resemblance of the Superego to Marx's Superstructure?

Marx reductionist? sure, but Freud was ANYTHING but reductionistic. he was the opposite - he kept adding on layers and layers of complexity and just never had parsimony in his theories. He might have overemphasized sexuality, but at the end of the day Freud was not oversimplified - he should have simplified more, because maybe then people would not have listened to Skinner as much as they did.

And the problems with Freud's theories aren't that they are outdated - the problem with Freud is his "takes" on the psyche are simply not testable, so they have been shelved indefinitely. To use an analogy, Freud was saying that there are invisible forces in the universe that work "beneath the radar" but nonetheless produce results in nature. There's nothing to grab at or test in Freud's account of the causal relations of human behavior.

I don't think Marx, while reductionistic, is outdated either, he was just a horribly shitty economist. Everyday I walk around my Uni watching researchers, professors, faculty staff and I ask why do they do what they do? What are their overall motivations? "The history of Academia is an economic history" is all that echoes in my ears over and over everytime I observe my fellow academics. People don't give a flying fuck about science or medicine save for a scarce few - most people in academia and research just want a damn job and a high-paying salary while doing as little as possible. They only care for preserving their pet theories like a sinner of avarice hording a stash of Gold, prodding and attacking any and all who would attack their sacred theory; they only care for "Publish or Perish". Marx hit the nail on the head with that one, I almost hate him for being so truthful about it, because I can't prove him wrong. Only the most eccentric NTP or NTJ scientist/mathematician makes me realize Marx was oversimplifying.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I do think Freud was reductionist in the extreme, he tried to explain all mind and behaviour as corresponding to sexual instinct, in analysis just compare him to Jung and you'll have a real contrast between the reductionist and the alternative but Freud felt his approach was scientific as a direct result of its reductionism.

Likewise Marx tried to construct a similarly reductionist and deterministic theory, like Freud, I tend to think he was as great an economist as others of his day and age, just saw the invisible hand guiding society in a different direction to that predicted by classical liberals. Or rather saw the visible hand to class struggle in the place of invisible market forces. His theories about motivation and individuals being frustrated producers instead of frustrated consumers, they all predate him. He was really an archetypical student who spent time in the British Libraries reading rooms trying to weave his favourite authors (German philosophy, english economists, french socialists) into a single tapestry.

I think both have some literary and conceptual value perhaps and I like theorising and they are theorists. Whatever way advances in research or original and recent insights, for instance into the genome or genetic determinism, are made the older theories still have a place.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
I don't know if I see any evidence to believe Marxism isn't outdated and will grow to be anything but less relevant.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
I don't know if I see any evidence to believe Marxism isn't outdated and will grow to be anything but less relevant.

the THEORIES behind Marxism are all but obsolete, but the original observations they are founded on are as relevant as ever. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen an uprising in interest for socialism/communism in America during this bank bailout and recession shit, because our population demographics and economic disparities DO resemble that of a "class struggle". Don't shy away from Marxism just because it's immensely unpopular - the perspectives and observations still very much apply.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
the THEORIES behind Marxism are all but obsolete, but the original observations they are founded on are as relevant as ever. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen an uprising in interest for socialism/communism in America during this bank bailout and recession shit, because our population demographics and economic disparities DO resemble that of a "class struggle". Don't shy away from Marxism just because it's immensely unpopular - the perspectives and observations still very much apply.

Indeed: sociologically, Marxism remains deeply true, especially the concepts of mass alienation and class struggle. Many prominent thinkers can call themselves "Marxist" under that light. Since I agree with the conclusions of Frankfurt's school, and especially Habermas, I could conclude I'm Marxist too.

But politically, it's a completely different story. Many of the same Marxist sociologists (Arendt, for instance) also were the first to denounce the totalitarian trend that deeply permeates the economical and political sections of the Marxist theory, and the grave danger they represent.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
the THEORIES behind Marxism are all but obsolete, but the original observations they are founded on are as relevant as ever. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen an uprising in interest for socialism/communism in America during this bank bailout and recession shit, because our population demographics and economic disparities DO resemble that of a "class struggle". Don't shy away from Marxism just because it's immensely unpopular - the perspectives and observations still very much apply.

The one advocating the contemporary relevance of Marxism is surprised by how things played/are playing out, the one doing the opposite is not.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I find their respective worths extremely different.

Both have put forth highly rebuked notions, but between the two:

Marx has contributed considerably more that has stood the test of time. He mostly gave us conflict theory in sociology, and fundamentals of commodity markets that are used today in economics even by rabid capitalists.

Freud on the other hand, has very little work still standing in positive academic esteem. Perhaps his notion of the sub-conscious and some of the matter concerning the ego are still used, but for the most part, no. He is best known for celebrity status, and popularizing the already established field of psychology, but is no longer of much academic worth.

EDIT: Jesus. It took Backmail! to remember that Marx concerns more than just political movements.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
Marx has contributed considerably more that has stood the test of time. He mostly gave us conflict theory in sociology, and fundamentals of commodity markets that are used today in economics even by rabid capitalists.

EDIT: Jesus. It took Backmail! to remember that Marx concerns more than just political movements.
My field is capitalist economics. What fundamentals of commodity markets originated from Marx that are used today by capitalist economists?
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
EDIT: Jesus. It took Backmail! to remember that Marx concerns more than just political movements.

nice to know i'm on your ignore :p

nozflubber said:
Everyday I walk around my Uni watching researchers, professors, faculty staff and I ask why do they do what they do? What are their overall motivations? "The history of Academia is an economic history" is all that echoes in my ears over and over everytime I observe my fellow academics. People don't give a flying fuck about science or medicine save for a scarce few - most people in academia and research just want a damn job and a high-paying salary while doing as little as possible. They only care for preserving their pet theories like a sinner of avarice hording a stash of Gold, prodding and attacking any and all who would attack their sacred theory; they only care for "Publish or Perish". Marx hit the nail on the head with that one, I almost hate him for being so truthful about it, because I can't prove him wrong. Only the most eccentric NTP or NTJ scientist/mathematician makes me realize Marx was oversimplifying.

Marx was a social theorist first, political theorist second. His observations pertain to social theory, his theories and implimentations were political. But I guess I didn't "remember that"! Sorry!
 

ObliviousExistence

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
178
MBTI Type
loco
Enneagram
5W4
Freud tried to oversimplify and reduce everything to the extent of forcing the simplification, and like someone else said he overemphasized sex. I think Marx is still relevant except to those who misunderstand his theories.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
Freud tried to oversimplify and reduce everything to the extent of forcing the simplification, and like someone else said he overemphasized sex. I think Marx is still relevant except to those who misunderstand his theories.

His labour theory of value and factors of productio nare outdated and would simply be regard ed as lacking or false in today's understanding of econocmis.

The phillosophical and sociological impolications of this are quite relevant.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
His labour theory of value and factors of productio nare outdated and would simply be regard ed as lacking or false in today's understanding of econocmis.

The phillosophical and sociological impolications of this are quite relevant.

You mean Ricardo's labour theory of value?

The thing about Marx, like I said before, is that he was a student, gathering together into a single hypothesis other theories, therefore a lot of the people who condemn Marx and Marxism dont realise that they are condemning by the same token a lot of classical economics. Its a little clearer if you go to the original sources, read Adam Smith the way that Marx did, Hegel the way he did and really early Proudhon (seriously Proudhon typified French "socialism's" popular reaction to the change and development which industrialisation and economic restructuring were bringing in, you'll not believe it but a lot of the work attempted to explain and pitch Smith's ideas to people more likely to demand paternalistic despotic regimes).

Marx was a champion of capitalism BTW, the communist manifesto is basically a defence of capitalism against paleoconservatives and socialists, basically he suggests that the system has huge potential and that prosperity would be generated by the superabundance it could create NOT redistribution per se, its similar to Durkheim's distinctions between socialism or syndicalism and communism. That'll be a surprise to many but its none the less a fact if you make a close and proper reading of his books.

Freud's legacy I believe is much, much, much more literary than anything else, ego psychology and his theories of the conscious/unconscious divide (the subconscious isnt his terminology, not in my reading anyway) but I think even in his errors he was a trail blazer and system builder. The conflicts and alternatives which were sparked off by his theorising were a tribute to him I'd say.

Besides those theorists, I was thinking about archana too, all those theories, in particular alchemy, which on the face of it were wiped out by modern findings, such as chemistry, in a way and properly understood or filtered I think still have a value if you consider them as processes of conceptualisation. Different times and cultures and contexts but human beings trying to process things and share how that was going.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
You mean Ricardo's labour theory of value?
Yes, but after comparitive advantage, I gave him a pass on ltv. Marx took it further.

The thing about Marx, like I said before, is that he was a student, gathering together into a single hypothesis other theories, therefore a lot of the people who condemn Marx and Marxism dont realise that they are condemning by the same token a lot of classical economics. Its a little clearer if you go to the original sources, read Adam Smith the way that Marx did, Hegel the way he did and really early Proudhon (seriously Proudhon typified French "socialism's" popular reaction to the change and development which industrialisation and economic restructuring were bringing in, you'll not believe it but a lot of the work attempted to explain and pitch Smith's ideas to people more likely to demand paternalistic despotic regimes).
I understand with a lot of what Marx said, especially many facutal things about capitalism. My biggest beef with him is his understanding of fairness, the ethics of exploitation, et cetera. Also, I feel his understanding of the factors of production (his overemphasis for labour anyway) to be insufficient.


Marx was a champion of capitalism BTW, the communist manifesto is basically a defence of capitalism against paleoconservatives and socialists, basically he suggests that the system has huge potential and that prosperity would be generated by the superabundance it could create NOT redistribution per se, its similar to Durkheim's distinctions between socialism or syndicalism and communism. That'll be a surprise to many but its none the less a fact if you make a close and proper reading of his books.
Yes, I'm aware Marx coined capitalism as being the most productive system or whatever. I agree with that part.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Yes, but after comparitive advantage, I gave him a pass on ltv. Marx took it further.


I understand with a lot of what Marx said, especially many facutal things about capitalism. My biggest beef with him is his understanding of fairness, the ethics of exploitation, et cetera. Also, I feel his understanding of the factors of production (his overemphasis for labour anyway) to be insufficient.



Yes, I'm aware Marx coined capitalism as being the most productive system or whatever. I agree with that part.

Hmm, yeah, you seem to have a pretty vague idea overall.

Just what were his ethics of expolitation etc? His understanding of fairness? Those were implicit rather than explicit for the most part and carried over from enlightenment or classical liberalism. He and Engels dismissed a lot of that exlicitly as cantor.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
For example, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I find unethical. My understanding is that this was part opinion and not simply what he believed to be a necessity under communism. Do you disagree?
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
The one advocating the contemporary relevance of Marxism is surprised by how things played/are playing out, the one doing the opposite is not.

Really? I disagree. I wasn't surprised by the current economic crisis, neither are most Marxists. Nearly all bourgeois economists were, and have been unable to explain it seriously.

In fact no other "school" of economics has a theory of why crises are inherent to capitalism, yet we can see they are.

For example, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I find unethical. My understanding is that this was part opinion and not simply what he believed to be a necessity under communism. Do you disagree?

It's neither an "opinion" or a "fact", it's a proposal for a rationally organized society.
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
Likewise Marx tried to construct a similarly reductionist and deterministic theory, like Freud, I tend to think he was as great an economist as others of his day and age, just saw the invisible hand guiding society in a different direction to that predicted by classical liberals. Or rather saw the visible hand to class struggle in the place of invisible market forces. His theories about motivation and individuals being frustrated producers instead of frustrated consumers, they all predate him. He was really an archetypical student who spent time in the British Libraries reading rooms trying to weave his favourite authors (German philosophy, english economists, french socialists) into a single tapestry.

I disagree with this too. Marx was active in the workers movement, he conceived of theory as a guide to action, and he tested it empirically, revising it honestly in line with developments in the class struggle. Likewise Lenin and Trotsky are a continuation from this, and also tested and proved the applicability of Marxism in theory by winning the leadership of the great majority of the urban proletariat away from the Mensheviks.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
For example, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I find unethical. My understanding is that this was part opinion and not simply what he believed to be a necessity under communism. Do you disagree?

Its also the ethical basis for capitalism if you give it a bit of thought. Its not that radical.
 

Shaunward

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
Really? I disagree. I wasn't surprised by the current economic crisis, neither are most Marxists. Nearly all bourgeois economists were, and have been unable to explain it seriously.

In fact no other "school" of economics has a theory of why crises are inherent to capitalism, yet we can see they are.

It's neither an "opinion" or a "fact", it's a proposal for a rationally organized society.
Chicago and Austrian schools have explanations for crises under a market economy. Neither while doing undergrad and postgrad economic studies, did I once hear the expression 'bourgeois economists', what does that mean?

Its also the ethical basis for capitalism if you give it a bit of thought. Its not that radical.
I don't agree, although I can't specifically say where I disagree with you because you haven't provided your specific argument. I don't believe capitalism necessitates a perfectly competitive market and that there will always be administrative costs. From such observations alone, I don't see how 'from each according to etc.' is the ethical basis for capitalism. Please explain specifically?
 
Top