Table Of Content

MARXISM AND PSYCHOANALYSIS DE Xp.1 ALSO BY REUBEN OSBORN Freud and Marx Psychology of Reaction Philosophy for the Ordinary Man Humanism and Moral Theory MARXISM AND PSYCHOANALYSIS by Reuben Osborn introduction by John Strachey A A DELTA BOOK (Contents A DELTA BOOK I nt induction by John Strachey vii Published by Dell Publishing Co., Inc. 750 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 Delta ® TM 755118 Dell Publishing Co., Inc. Xulhor’s Preface xvii Copyright © 1965 by Reuben Osborn First published in England in 1965 by purr one: The Theories of Freud Barrie & Rockliff (Barrie Ltd.) All rights reserved chapter 1. The Structure of the Mind 1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-10090 Manufactured in the United States of America Freud’s Sexual Theory c 12 Sale of this edition is prohibited in the i British Commonwealth, including Canada 3. Dreams and Analysis *7 First Delta Printing 4. Normal and Abnormal Psychology 37 part two: Freud and Marx chapter 5. Primitive Society 55 6. Religion and Moral Theory r < 7. Social Development 8o 8. Dialectical Materialism 1O1 9. Some Applications Index 157 hil induction \ < <Hnp.il-alive study of the doctrines of Marx and Freud has • ii< n Been demanded by free-lance critics of Marxism. These (IHks have never shown any inclination to undertake the urn I , however; nor is this to be regretted, for the only quali- lh .iiion for the task which most of them have possessed has hi i n a nicely balanced ignorance of both disciplines. in I Ik? meantime Marxists have tended to dismiss psycho- iii ilyuc theory as unworthy of attention. It may be doubted, however, if the founders of Marxism would have adopted this iiimidc. Friedrich Engels in particular made it his business lo pass in review every major scientific development which • hi micd during his lifetime. It may be that if he could have lived another twenty years he would not have omitted to con- iid< i i he works of Freud. This is not to suggest that Engels uoidd have accepted Freudian theory in its entirety. On the i on nary, we can imagine the caustic and ironic sentences wiili which the greatest of all polemists would have pointed oni its one-sided character. But I cannot help believing that Engels would no more have neglected Freud’s discoveries in i h< held of psychology than he neglected the discoveries of I In win or of Morgan in the fields of biology or anthropology. That old eagle would have swooped upon this new material also, and would have digested it, criticised it, sifted it. viii Introduction I hi • < hIik 1 ion ix Nor, I am convinced, would Engels have failed to find in • ♦»• io. ol then very oppositeness, by means of their sharply Freud’s work data which he would have hailed as of the • ••mu nln tiny character, provide, when taken together, just utmost importance for the development of Marxism. For Ili n unity ol opposites in which, Marx and Engels believed, Engels himself used concepts for which the data discovered by II illiy < in alone be adequately described? Freud were to provide the necessary scientific confirmation. In paitKiilar, do the purely empirical findings of the Who, for example, wrote this description of the original form -«•• «l\ 1 • belli confirm the main generalisations of Marxism of human society?: ‘But mutual tolerance of the grown males, Hlnl 11 1 he same time supplement and make specific these freedom from jealousy, was the first condition for the forma 1- in 1 ilr..iiions in some important respects? tion of large and permanent groups.’ Is this a quotation from I hrlirvo that in this book Mr. Osborn has taken a first step Freud’s well-known work, Totem and Tabu? On the con lnw ml*, -.bowing that they do. He is able to show, for trary, it is a quotation from Engels’ The Origin of The • • 1111 pic. I hat psycho-analysis has, all unknown to itself, pro- Family: Private Property and the State, published in 1891. Hihil o\< 1 whelming evidence of the validity of the main Or, again, it was Engels, not Freud, who explained a man’s pi im iplcs of dialectical materialism. As has often been otherwise inexplicable opinions by saying that ‘the real film 1 \ <•< 1 already, the purely empirical findings of the analysts motives impelling him remain unknown to him ... hence he ■■Af nonsense of, or alternatively are nonsense according to, imagines false or apparent motives’. And Engels goes on to I lu older, formally logistic, or, as Marx and Engels used to describe these false and apparent motives for holding particu • dl H metaphysical, way of thinking. lar opinions, not indeed as rationalisations, but as ‘an ideo ii r. 11 ne that the analysts, never having heard of dialectical logy’, which had been adopted, not indeed unconsciously, but III iici lalism,2 continue to accept the metaphysical categories with ‘a false consciousness’.1 ill 1 bought. Hence their inability to deal with the, on their Can we doubt that anyone who had had the genius to nr n pi cmises, irrefutable objections to almost every concept arrive at such conceptions as these would have been pro nl p-.y< ho analysis, put forward by the academic philosophers. foundly interested when a wealth of scientifically observed I hr concepts of analysis are, on the basis of formal, un- data, exactly confirming them, was produced by Freud; ill ih < 1 i< al logic, flatly self-contradictory. The basic concept of when there appeared conclusive evidence to show that the |Im dynamic unconscious itself, upon which everything else ‘mutual tolerance of the grown males’ had, in fact, been the 1111%. is, from the standpoint of formal logic, nonsense. For, key question in the earliest human societies; or when it was 1 In a< ademic philosophers point out, either a man knows shown that it was possible actually to reveal those unknown, am ne thing or he does not: therefore it is nonsense to say, as real motives which were unconsciously, or ‘falsely consciously’, In nd does, that a man both knows a thing and does not impelling men to hold particular opinions? I iinw ii : that he knows it and yet is not conscious of it. The relationship of Marxism to psycho-analytic theory is, 1 icnd has observed, and has now taught us all to observe, however, a far bigger question than that of the anticipations, iIh lact that a man often does both know and not know the however striking, of Friedrich Engels. Nor is there the least •»(iiii<- thing at the same time; that he knows it unconsciously; doubt that these sciences are directly opposite. The question I hat he has the knowledge, and that this knowledge power- is, are they dialectical opposites? Do they, that is to say, by ■ I his may not be true of the younger German analysts, but it is almost * Engels’ letter to Mehring, Marx-Engels Correspondence, p. 511 (Martin lli« 1 .illy mie of representative British analysts, and, for that matter, of Freud 1 .awrence). llIlllNt'll. X Introduction il) troduction fully influences his thoughts and actions, but that he does not haps, Mr. Osborn’s most exciting theoretical discovery.3 lh> know that he has it. All this is now established by common most important suggestion is contained, however, in his two observation a hundred times over. It was in order to describe chapters on the Materialist Conception of History. His con these facts that Freud had to formulate the concept of the cept ion of the advisability of a shift of emphasis from the dynamic unconscious. But what Freud failed to observe was study of the character of our environment, to the study of our that in establishing and naming these facts he drove a coach reactions to that environment is, I believe, of great signifi and four through such first principles of formal logic as that cance. Mr. Osborn emphasises, in his introductory chapter, of the exclusion of contradictions - the principle that a thing the necessity of building upon Marx’s great discovery that cannot both be and not be. So much the worse for logic, man’s consciousness is determined by his social existence. Freud has implied, with a shrug of his empirical shoulders. Scientific politicians, Mr. Osborn suggests, cannot rest But - and here Freud has shown himself a typical scientist of supinely upon that discovery. They must not be content till his class and generation - he has not seen that once one they have discovered how in precise detail our social existence logic, one way of thinking, has shattered itself upon the conditions our consciousness. For example, Marx predicted rocks of observed reality, it is urgently incumbent upon us that the inevitable development of an objective environment to replace it with another. For, unless we do so, we are com ripe for Socialism would produce a consciousness of the need pelled to go on using the old logic, which no longer fits the for Socialism in men’s minds. Such an environment has now facts, and so to get ourselves into inextricable confusion. developed. Has it produced a general consciousness of the Moreover, before Freud began his work there existed a way need for Socialism? Well, yes, it has, to a certain extent, in of thinking which fully allowed for just those co-existing, certain places, at certain times, and in certain ways. But to interpenetrating contradictions which the analysts have found what extent, where, when, how? To us, the details, the actual to abound in the structure of mental reality. In a word, mechanism of the process by which men’s social existence dialectical materialism provides the only possible rationale determines their consciousness, are of the utmost importance. of the findings of psycho-analysis; while these findings, more For upon an adequate knowledge of how this process works especially since they have been independently made, provide our very lives may depend. the most striking confirmation yet obtained of the validity of Nor did Marx and Engels ever pretend to have investigated dialectical materialism. the detailed, particular, specific manner in which the inter Mr. Osborn’s seventh and eighth chapters show how the action of environment and consciousness took place. Engels whole of the findings of psycho-analysis are shot through and says this in the letter to Mehring from which I have just through with dialectical concepts. The truth is that the quoted: analysts have suffered M. Jourdain’s misfortune: they have ‘We all,’ he writes, ‘laid, and were bound to lay, the main been talking dialectical materialism for years without know emphasis at first on the derivation of political, juridical and ing it. Is it not time that their attention was drawn to this fact other ideological notions, and of the actions arising through that the news was broken to them that there exists a method the medium of these notions, from basic and economic facts. of thought which makes sense, instead of nonsense, of their 3 I cannot forbear to call attention to the beauty and brilliance of Mr. liin lings; which can find room for every one of their otherwise Osborn’s suggestion that the dream forms the dialectical opposite of the paradoxical and inexplicable conclusions? waking thought process, or of his deduction that this is the explanation of the otherwise inexplicable fact that so much conscious thinking has been The dialectical character of psycho-analytic theory is, per undialectical. xii Introduction hilimliH lion Mill But in so doing we neglected the formal side - the way in h dh n in i > In i v< nd I In Ii iidi hi V In in g 11 i I I In d \ ii mill mi It whi< h these notions come about - for the sake of the content.’ |l I l H I 1.11 l III m I Ik way in wln< h our notions come about is, however, of Ihii 11 M.ii \ rds 11,1 v<’ mil always been mh < <ssl id in the light vital impoi tan<c now that the ever-accelerating development ig iiim i tendency l<> ovri emphasise one la<Ini to the ex <>l our objective environment is forcing the issue of social • liiMoii ol its dialec tical opposite, psycho-analysts have change upon us. For our extraordinary notions, our irrational, ii niily In rn conscious, even, that such a danger existed. childish, but formidable notions, bid fair to make the pro I I" \ have oltcn naively written as if environmental in cess of social change almost intolerably costly. And the way in ll........ -Ii«I not exist, or, at any rate, could not change; as if which men’s notions come about is precisely the subject tin y\hol< <il men’s social and economic environment, in par- matter of psycho-analysis. th id.ii < mild be written off as a constant in the equation of We shall not be able effectively to influence or direct the Im behaviour. Moreover we have to try, not merely to process of social change unless we can learn to understand the tiep ,i < on eel balance of emphasis upon the two factors: particular way in which men’s consciousness develops from yvli.it we have to learn is when to emphasise the one and when their social existence. For not only psycho-analysis, but m < iii|>hasisc the other. In the last century, for example, common experience, warns us that the way in which our con Maixisis were bound, as Engels writes, ‘to lay the main sciousness arises from our social existence is neither simple imphasis on the objective, environmental factor in the nor direct. It is, on the contrary, an exceedingly involved, d< h i initiation of political, juridical and other ideological complex, and often baffling process. The psycho-analysts would notions, and of the actions arising through the medium of not claim to have attained to anything like a complete compre iIk sc notions’. Today, however, an increased emphasis should, hension of it. But they have made definite progress towards such surely, be laid on the subjective, dynamic factors innate in a comprehension; hence their work must not be neglected by ni< n, which the objective, environmental factors interpene- anyone who desires to see consciously willed social change. tralc, to make man as we know him? For the environmental The principal conclusion to be derived from the study of factors are all upon our side already: they cry aloud for social psycho-analytic theory is, it seems to me, that the emergence change. Our business is to see to it that we know how to of a particular type of consciousness - a particular set of interpret that inarticulate cry in such way that men will political, religious, scientific, and miscellaneous opinions, a heed it. particular ideology, that is to say - must not be conceived of All this, no doubt, amounts to little more than the sug as the passive reflection of a given social environment. It must gestion that Marxists need to be practical politicians, able to be conceived of rather as the interaction of the social environ find that correct, psychological approach which will enable ment with certain dynamic, subjective urges within man their audiences to grasp and to act upon their message. In himself. This view, Mr. Osborn is able to show, is fully con countries like Great Britain and America, which possess a sonant with the outlook of Marx and Engels. Indeed, they highly developed political life, there exists a long and rich would probably have severely characterised any other as tradition as to how men may be most effectively influenced. It mechanistic and undialectical. But it is a view to which it is is necessary that Marxists, if they wish to be men of action, not always easy for Marxists in their day-to-day political work should master this tradition; that they should master the to do full justice. It is difficult for the Marxist to avoid traditional technique of political activity as practised in their attributing almost exclusive importance to environmental own country. They must do so, not in order that they them xiv Introduction introduction xv selves should become demagogues, but just precisely because versation of working politicians, from observing Mr. Lloyd it is impossible to leave the formidable weapon of this tech George or Mr. Baldwin, or by imitating, in times of acute nique to the demagogues. For in this matter, also, it is a great social crisis, the methods of Lenin, than from the most perfect mistake to give the devil all the good tunes. mastery of psycho-analytic theory. And yet I think that there But Marxists are scientists. They possess the basic prin is one thing which the study of psycho-analytic theory can ciples of a science capable both of explaining and effecting teach us. Acquaintance with psycho-analytic teaching can social change. Hence they must be scientific also upon the help us to exhibit a certain temper of the mind, a certain question of the detailed technique by which the all-important attitude to our fellow-men, without which a political cause, truths of their science can be brought to the attention of the however just and however true it may be, can hardly make its whole population. Political propaganda, in other words, must way. I cannot attempt to define this attitude except by saying be for the Marxist not only an art, but also a science. He must that it appears to me to be well exemplified in Mr. Osborn’s not be content when he has mastered the whole extensive folk book. His pages are impassioned, and yet dispassionate; lore of effective political activity. He must not be satisfied polemical and yet impersonal; acute and yet wise. It may be until he has surpassed, and ultimately superseded, this body that he has best conveyed his essential contribution to the of t raditional, instinctive, only semi-conscious knowledge by a technique of Socialist propaganda, not in any one thing which technique of political activity consciously deduced from he has said, but in his way of saying everything. scientifically established generalisations. Such a new political His particular recommendations for political practice may technique can, however, arise only upon the basis of a be questioned. Or, again, he may have made errors, which I genuinely scientific psychology. We shall never know how to am incompetent to detect, in his exposition of each doctrine. influence men, in the sense of enabling them to apprehend These will be pointed out, and can be corrected. But they do the truth more perfectly, until we have a knowledge of the not affect Mr. Osborn’s essential achievement. That achieve dynamics of mental processes. The psycho-analysts have taken ment is not, indeed, to have answered the question of the the first difficult steps towards the establishment of such a relationship of Marxism to psycho-analytic theory. That scientific psychology. enormous task will require the sustained efforts of many In his final chapter Mr. Osborn makes some suggestions as thinkers. No, what Mr. Osborn has done is to ask that ques to the kind of effect which a knowledge of psycho-analytic tion; and to ask it in so intelligent, fruitful, and well- theory might be expected to have upon Marxists’ political instructed a way that no one who cares for the development work. I think that Mr. Osborn would agree that as yet we of Marxism as a living science will in future be able to neg must regard such suggestions as stimulating and illustrative lect it. And this is no mean achievement. Engels said that rather than as of great practical importance. Psycho-analytic Hegel attempted to present ‘the whole natural, historical and theory is still so incomplete that it is as yet dangerous to spiritual world as a process.... That Hegel did not succeed in attempt to make particular deductions for practice from it. this task is here immaterial. His epoch-making service was (The psycho-analysts, thereby showing themselves to be that he propounded it’. Without exaggeration we may say of genuine and serious scientists, are the first to issue such a Mr. Osborn that, though he has not solved the problem of the warning.) It is certainly true, and will probably long remain relationship of Marxism to psycho-analysis, his splendid true, that those who wish to know how to influence their service is that he had propounded it. fellow-men can learn far more from the example and con John Strachey