Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
Doug Henwood said: . . . any Marxist writers on the r.c. . . . [?] Query whether Frederick Vanderbilt Field's autobiographical and political musings - e.g., From Right to Left (Lawrence Hill Co. and Chicago Review Press) - would qualify?
[PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It would be interesting if someone attempted a theory of imperialism that mediates socio-economic forces and structures with psychological structures of the ruling class and the power elite. I think Sartre once criticized Marxist theory for neglecting to provide such a mediating link. I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). While individual psychology can be important, it's easy to go too far. If George Bush -- arguably the most powerful person in the world -- were to change his mind on something important, it would immediately unleash forces from the coalition that backs him to push him back to their perspective. The most likely bad event (from the coalition's perspective) would be a collapse of the coalition itself. After all, Bush, Rove, Cheney (not in that order) are important because of their role in holding a coalition together that currently controls the US state. But it's also possible that the coalition could dominate the mind-change. Further, only some types of people are able to rise to the top of the power pyramid. There are a lot of filters. Dennis the K. will never make it, nor will that guy from Iowa, Tom Vilsack. An individual has to be willing to serve big money to make it to the top. They also need to be able to unite actually-existing social forces to form a coalition to get them into office. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
I agree On 3/12/07, Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
Dear Friends, I am not so sure about the link between psychology and marxism but there is growing literature on the intersection between psychoanalysis and marxism from the side of the psychoanalysis. With my co-author Ceren Ozselcuk, we have recently embarked upon bridging the gap from the side of the political economy. Our first effort found its venue in Psychoanalysis, Culture Society that is frequently a venue for critical analyses of capitalism from the perspective of psychoanalysis. The article is downloadable for free from the link below. I also paste below the abstract. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/pcs/journal/v10/n1/abs/2100028a.html Warmest, Yahya Madra -- *Psychoanalysis, Culture Society* (2005) *10,* 79–97. Psychoanalysis and Marxism: From Capitalist-All to Communist Non-All Ceren Özselçuk and Yahya M Madra Abstract: Current influential attempts to bring together psychoanalysis and Marxism turn on the question of how to critique and move beyond capitalism without reverting to a utopian notion of communism. Taking this question seriously, the article explores the implications of psychoanalytic categories such as the real, fantasy, *jouissance*, and the formulae of sexuation, for Marxian economics and politics. Rethinking Marxism in conjunction with Lacanian psychoanalysis, the article aims to formulate a post-phantasmatic relation to the economy of surplus, and from there, to offer a new ethico-political stance around exploitation and communism. On 3/12/07, Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover I think there's quite a bit of literature concerning Marxism and psychoanalysis, except that this genre of writing tends not to pay much attention to the ruling classes and power elites (how they are socialized, why they do what they do, etc.), more interested in the working class or oppressed groups among the working class. Strange as it may seem, the Marxist tradition has not paid much attention to the ruling classes and power elites as they actually exist. Probably it's in part because they are harder to study than intellectuals and laboring classes, who are more available for participant observation. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On Mar 12, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Strange as it may seem, the Marxist tradition has not paid much attention to the ruling classes and power elites as they actually exist. A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 12, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Strange as it may seem, the Marxist tradition has not paid much attention to the ruling classes and power elites as they actually exist. A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. I can think of one: Hanna Batatu, _The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq_ (London: Saqi Books, 2004, first published by Princeton UP in 1978). Really an extraordinary achievement (but it's sociology rather than psychology -- with very little Vanity Fair, needless to say :-). I'd love to read something like this about other countries in the Middle East and the Triad (the USA, the EU, and Japan). -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
don't you man the ruling elite, not the ruling class? how about G. William Domhoff? Tom Bottomore has a nice little book on _Elites and Society_, BTW. The original elite theories came from folks like Pareto and Mosca, who were pretty conservative. On 3/12/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
G. William Domhoff http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't you man the ruling elite, not the ruling class? how about G. William Domhoff? Tom Bottomore has a nice little book on _Elites and Society_, BTW. The original elite theories came from folks like Pareto and Mosca, who were pretty conservative. On 3/12/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
