Publicado em: Living Marxism: International Council Correspondence, Vol. IV (1938-1939), No 1 (February 1938)
Review of Reuben Osborn, Freud and Marx
Osborn’s book is, as far as we know, the first comparative study in English of the doctrines of Freud and Marx. He gives a survey of both theories, which in the manner of our modern Moscow annotators is composed chiefly of quotations.
His formalistic comparison of the two doctrines consists primarily in ascertaining whether Freud’s theory and the human mind as described by it are “dialectic”. One of his exploirations in search of dialectics we discussed in another article of this issue. Osborn’s superficial comparison does not touch on the theoretical connections between the two theories, on the basis of which an application of psychoanalysis as social psychology could alone be possible and of any concern for the worker.
In the last chapter of his book, Osborn gives “some applications” of what he learned from his comparison. His study of the emotional structure of man leads him to the recognition “that the need for leadership is universal” (p. 266). Leadership, he defines as “the faculty to stand in the emotional relationship of the father of childhood days” (p. 264). Thus he concludes we must give the masses what they are accustomed to. We must consciously develop leaders by “idealizing for the masses some one individual to whom they will turn for support, whom they will love and obey” (p. 266). To the objection that this is only a form of fascist demagogy, he replies that fascism satisfies subjectively the same needs as does communism. And that does Stalin, the great father and leader of the iron cohorts of the world revolution say about the objective conditions in the fatherland of the proletariat? He says, and Osborn quotes this statement, that “the role of so-called objective conditions has been reduced to a minimum, whereas the role of our organizations and of their leaders has become decisive, exceptional” (p. 273). These sentences are not essentially different from those we are accustomed to hear from similar fathers of similar socialist countries who stress the “primacy of politics over economics”. And who does not remember his first father-substitute in grade school preaching – “men make history”.
In the article already referred to, we demonstrated that Osborn’s conclusions cannot claim to result from a psychoanalytic interpretation of the authoritarian relationship. On the contrary, the analysis of social authority shows that the maintaining of the emotional ties which bind the masses to leaders and ideologies only weakens their faculty for revolutionary activities.
As a further application of the “unity” he achieved between psychoanalysis and Marxism, Osborn justifies point by point the whole party line of the C. P. He delivers “psychological” arguments for the united front policy and proposes to “associate the present struggle of the masses with the heroic figures of the past” (p. 268), – the national heroes of the bourgeoisie. This proposal which in the sphere of the individual’s personal life means a preservation of all the moral and authoritarian ties to capitalist society reveals with especial clarity the fascistic social content of the ideas he promulgates. And as a final consequence he does not forget to mention that his psychology can serve also to “free the socialist movement of the influence of dangerous and undesirable elements” (p. 283) whose “main tactic consists in fierce denunciations of parliament and labor leaders” (p. 282). Thus Osborn is aware that to carry out the “revolutionary” program he defends, it is necessary to liquidate the revolutionists, psychologically now, physically later.