something i've wanted to read for a while - a marriage of freudism and marxism, and psychoanalysis of the fascist masses - a rather ambitious goal; let's see how it goes. picked based on both my autistic interest in the mechanisms of fascism and my love of freud, and additionally my recent willingness to engage with political theory. i've heard wilhelm reich was a bit crazy, but i have high hopes with this. update: book finished on 21.04.2024!
back to the list here
introduction and chapter 1, 14.02.2024
wilhelm reich is a controversial marxist sexologist, who made an attempt of marrying marx and freud and this attempt is culminated in the book i've finally started reading and wanted to read for a while. so far it's been very promising, although i've only read the first 50 pages of it - i've looked at the other chapter titles, and i have to say titles such as organised mysticism as an international anti-sex organisation or conditions of funcitioning of the authoritarian family as understood under sexual economics are pretty tempting. i'll see for myself when i get there - so far i've read the introduction and the first chapter.
reich's beginning point is that fascism can't be understood as something that specific nations have a predisposition for, because it's ultimately something international that's originated from political exploitation of the freudian unconscious. reich's understanding of human psyche is that humans are 'good at the core', but their outermost, societal layer of learnt customs and limitations doesn't interact directly with their core, but rather this communication happens through the middle layer - the aforementioned unconscious, which accommodates all that is repressed, unwanted, forgotten et cetera in one's psyche; including sadistic, barbarian and primitive instincts. a very interesting take he positions here is that because of this [societal] separation, the actual core of the human nature - the one that expresses unity with cosmos and desire for community, et cetera - has only been expressed through art and music. very interesting; i do see here that reich has the same tendency as freud does of being overwhelmingly rational and then out of the blue saying something that sounds insane - i like this a lot, i believe nietzsche has something similar, but not the same (moreso says something insane and then it turns out to be less insane upon rational elaboration). generally speaking, his point here is that fascism appeals to and reflects that middle layer of the human psyche, and 'represents it', and that the 'core' is deprived of a representation in the world of ideas in capitalism (liberalism being the representation of the outermost layer). he also starts out with elaborate criticism towards both freudists and marxists, stating that freud can't be replaced with marx and marx can't be replaced with freud, and mixing them up kind of leaves both redundant.
his criticism towards crowds involved with the psychoanalysis movement is that: freud didn't sufficiently elaborate on the sources of cultural repression of sexuality in his philosophy of culture (though reich states that freud's philosophy of culture still made more sense than all sociological and most post-marx marxist takes), implying that the repression happens 'in order to build culture', but not explaining what's the relation between culture and repression, i.e. why developed infrastructure, science et cetera cannot exist without repressing sexuality, what's the obstacle to it coexisting. another point is that psychoanalysis often attempts to explain in terms of irrational drives things that are rational and sufficiently explained by economics, such as actions of rebellion against oppression; which will inevitably come from a conservative, capitalistic point of view and end up in 'reactionary drivel'; another is that they tend to assume the freudian division of the human psyche is given biological data, a priori, rather than something that can be culturally constructed - the society's repression of individual sexuality being seen as inherent.
his criticism towards marxists, meanwhile, is that they overlook psychology entirely in attempts to become more 'materialist', dismissing things that can't be entirely explained by economics as these that can't be analysed at all, and thus 'vulgar marxists' are left not understanding mass processes such as fascism that go in opposite to what the masses should do for their own good (revolution) and dismiss them as "mass psychosis" and such without naming the sources and reasons for this behaviour; basic misunderstanding of the masses not acting like they 'should' in their own interest according to marxist theory leaves them without answer as to why the past attempts to establish communism have failed and i.e. why in face of economic crisis the masses in germany turned right rather than left, and it pushes them to the defensive. by doing so, they leave field for the right to fill with ideas of 'spirit' and naturalism, which do not suit marxist analysis at all, instead of rational psychoanalysis which does so - additionally, the marxists are bound to fail if they reject psychology, because they operate on psychology (things such as class consciousness et cetera) consistently, and in doing so, they don't understand the processes they're trying to aid or manipulate. his other complaint is lack of adaptation - the lack of application of marxist dialectical materialism to new challenges that appeared after marx, such as fascism, and refusing to engage with new knowledge that couldn't have been applied by marx since it didn't exist in his era, such as psychoanalysis. he calls it out as opposing marx' doctrine of economic processes as happening on living organisms - psychological humans - and additionally ignoring his statement that the ruling class is dominant ideologically and the lower classes are inclined to reason within the framework installed by oppressors that benefits them; thus the marxists expect the masses to act rationally from the point of view of their vital intersts at all times, which is wishful thinking. he believes that by neglecting the signifcance of ideology and assuming that ideology is always 1:1 reflected point of interest of the individual as per their class the marxists are not offerring exhausting explanations.
a lot of the first chapter is further criticism of the marxists for 'not reflecting on the developments so far enough to come to the conclusion that either marxist doctrine has been wrong at the basis - in which case if we still aim to get somewhere with the workers' movement it has to be given a new framework and goals - or the marxist doctrine is right, in which case there's something that has not been taken into consideration when attempting its application'. he leans towards the latter. he makes a point to elaborately criticise communist parties for dismissing sexology overall as counter-revolutionary, states that no marxist movement that excludes black people or otherwise groups oppressed on basis other than pure class struggle has chances to actually succeed, and states that there's no real marxist movement as is [writing this edition in the 1940s]; he criticises the ussr as being state capitalism according to marx, since it still has different agents own the means of production - 'nationalised' not being the same as 'communised', bringing up that marx never stated multiple private owners are necessary for capitalism to exist, and thus didn't exclude the existence of state capitalism, as the state is still not the same agent as the community. he speaks negatively of rhetoric surrounding private property in communication from the marxist movements - not correcting the common misconception that it includes personal property such as clothes rather than the means of production; he complains that marxist parties condemned his beliefs as going against the interest of the parties basically since they attempted benefit on the same factors; he also complains that excluding the working class beyond the factory workers and peasants - such as office workers - from the marxist workers' movements and class struggle contributed to fascism arising, since hitler largely won with their votes.
reich introduces his own field, 'sexual economics', which be believes to be marrying the marxist theory of economics with the freudian theory of psychoanalysis - it's based in the idea that the 'authoritarian family' replicates the authoritarian structure of the capitalist society and re-enacts it onto individuals in their development, installing onto them the bounds of sexual repression which - via the unconscious - lead to behavioural passiveness as well, preventing revolutionary effort and rebellion against the system; hence why conservatism puts so much stake in family as an unit.
he believes that the way sexual repression, shame and fear occupy the unconscious also defines the person's behaviour in contexts outside of sexuality (as per freud) and specifically also prevents action against economic exploitation and oppression - he believes that women's tendency to be more conservative [in germany of his times] despite being poorer and more oppressed would come from being more sexually repressed, and that way capitalists exploited sexuality as a way to grant obedience, which was enforced by 'authoritarian family' which replicated the capitalist relations of power, and fascism, wars and other psychologically resulted from subverting of repressed instincts, sublimating them and 'employing' them for something else, mostly destructive actions in interest of capitalism.
in this context he found purely economic explanations not sufficient, since they explain the way something serves capitalism, but does not explain why exploited, oppressed workers within capitalism 'cooperate' against their own interest - i.e. explaining something with 'illusions of socialdemocrats' is a tautology since socialdemocracy is, according to him, an illusion in itself (and it doesn't provide an explanation as to why the masses are prone to falling for said illusion).
his 'sexual economics' plays into the belief that psychology shouldn't try to figure out why a starving person steals or why are the workers on strike because it'll inevitably come from a conservative perspective and be counter-revolutionary - it should aim to explain why most of the impoverished people do not steal or strike, as in, why do people act in counter to their economic interest.
he believes fascism can only be understood and sufficiently explained as operating in the layer of ideology - something that reflects character, which in turns reflects societal/material impact on the individual growing up - and as something that doesn't only result from reactionary impulses, but also revolutionary impulses utilised for a misguided goal (subversion/sublimation).
reich's theory of sexual economics is based in freudism, which i generally follow (as a nietzschean-freudist overall... yes, i know, i know) and marxism, which i find myself curious of and have been subscribing to some of the analysis, but haven't yet found myself properly engaged with, so this might be my proper exposure to marxism to see how i feel about it in larger volumes. i have pretty defined and extreme beliefs, but so far more in the philosophical than political area.
regarding freud, there's of course the basics of his ideology going as default here, which are that: the conscious is only a small part of the psyche, the unconscious constitutes of the societally repressed biological drives, sexuality exists in childhood (no, that does not mean csa is okay - it's autoerotic, that is oriented towards one's own body, and an intrusion would be traumatic, according to freud, who is not a pedophilia apologist contrary to the popular propaganda about him) and is a thing of its own beyond procreation, not existing only as instrumental to reproduction, while morality comes from sexual repression, not from some kind of a natural order or supernatural wishes. he will abide to these theories and believes they deserve protection from attacks which come from everywhere; i have my own takes on the negative propaganda against freud, which i associate with antisemitism, since freud was ethnically a czech jew living in austria, and the austrians/germans [no clear separation back then] did not claim him so eagerly.
i suppose that's it for now, the next chapter concerns the authoritarian family and its role in the ideology of fascist masses, which sounds very intriguing. so, see you when i motivate myself to continue, whenever that may be (hopefully soon; otherwise i'll still post about other topics and other books perhaps).
chapters 2-5, 28-30.03.2024, posted 04.04
again my apologies for reading and journaling multiple books at once and doing it in an uneven pace. last weekend i've spent sitting outside in the sun and reading reich, and i've read a significant part, but i'll try to split the chapters as i discuss them to make it more detailed and precise. i've gotten pretty involved in this book, so i might update this journal more often. i've read chapter 6 too and i'm currently on 7th, but i think 6th is more suitable to be discussed together with 7th, so i'll get to it in the next entry.
a very important thing i learnt from these chapters (2-5) is that the nietzschean principles are, in fact, compatible with marxism. which makes me more eager to start reading marx and engage with politics more. generally speaking, i have a stable set of values and relatively developed philosophical system, and the main reason i would feel negatively about communism was - aside from misconceptions my leftcom friends kind of helped me correct - that i've associated communism with a pursuit of equality and mediocrity-promoting mentalities. that - honestly infantile - view of communism was caused by internet slacktivists whom i watched associate it with specific moral principles that were radically at odds with mine. thanks to reich here i'm now more open to learning about it.
why/how is this thesis supported? well, i encourage you to read my discussion of further chapters.
chapter 2 - 'ideology of the authoritarian family in psychology of fascist masses'
there reich is trying to analyse the factors that resulted in national socialism gaining the popularity it gained. dismisses the idea of hitler being an exceptional individual, and economic factors, since from the economic pov the masses were acting against their own interest. he quotes the nazis themselves claiming that their beliefs can't be disproven by arguments since they run deeper than argumentation - indeed, reich traces them back to something more primal, and claims that there must have been compatibility between the nazi propaganda and that primal, instinctual element in the german psyche if masses were proven vulnerable to 'seduction' by the nazis. he's trying to find out what it was. interestingly, i have actually written something about seduction as an instrument of propaganda in the past, and about its meaning in context of cultural pseudo-courting, attempting to provoke sexual or parasexual feelings and subvert them onto the nation or whatever is convenient. reich seems to align well with that.
he discusses hitler's own background, and the statistic of voters in germany by demographic and year - turns out, initially nazism was mainly the ideology of the 'middle class', such as minor officials, owners and employees of small businesses, service workers and akin, which only later spread accross the whole society - this was the case in germany and austria, but also other countries with significant nazi movements. reich analyses the cultural and economic characteristics of this demographic, which among other is that they're set to compete with each other - unlike factory workers and otherwise proletariat who generally cooperate - and have perspectives for climbing up the ranks, and thus tend to despise these below them and identify with their superiors, and - as the result - strongly internalise cult of authority. solidarity cannot be obtained because being below someone is compensated by being above someone else and getting to look down on them. this is reflected on their family structure where the father represents the superior of mini scale and the family structure is hierarchical; hitler himself comes from such a background, as son of a middle class official. reich notes that his life story - including rebelion against the father in regards to career choices, but also inability to become independent from him emotionally - represents the typical conflict of middle class children, in a strongly hierarchical setting, therefore it's unsurprising that he would crate an ideolgy that reflects the mindset on the grand scale. he also notes - and that's an important part - that this demographic was the most sexually repressed one, paying the most attention to sexual morality and losing their virginity and latest.
this is all unlike the factory workers, whose work environment isn't set to make them compete with each other, and who are more down to earth in regards to sexuality, lose their virginity early and have a different, looser approach to sexual morality, not treating religious morality especially as seriously - which makes them more revolutionary in political approach, albeit some of them too fell victims to nazi propaganda - we'll get to why.
anyway, the conclusion on this is that the identification with authority and one's superior caused by a competition-focused and hierarchical enviornment, in turn causes lack of solidarity with these of the same class or lower, which makes identification with substitute, grander constructs such as the nation and the state easier, and which makes the idea of a strong authority leader more appealing - as they were more prone to identification with and idealisation of hitler as their representant, being used to being 'represented' by someone above them. emotional identification with one above is what creates the 'scissors' between one's ideology and their actual economic interest.
the next thing he discusses is the farmers and peasants - again, a group weirdly and strongly supportive of the nazis despite living in similar conditions to the factory workers economically, and also granted a special status in the nazi ideology - there was a visible glorification of this demographic and their lifestyle. he quotes and discusses examples of that glorification, and then progresses to pointing out the differences between the peasants and factory workers lifestyle wise - the main one being that the farmer lifestyle is an extremely family-based mode of production, one where one works mostly with and for their family members, while the city lower classes separate with their families and spend time with peers at work instead. according to reich. this 'containment' to the closest family members causes sexual repression stronger than otherwise, in that even if the people of this background lose their virginity earlier than the middle class, they have a comparable dedication to religious sexual morality and a relatively high rate of sexual violence, which he associates with said repression - reich stands firmly on the position stating that perversion results from repression of healthy libido (i agree with that generally).
then, he quotes nazis where they did verbatim state that the special value attached to villagrs is grounded in their 'healthy moral constitution' and family structures - so, it's focused around sexual morality, and that's more or less visible to the fascists themselves: living in nature with one's own family mostly means lack of sexual 'degeneration' and promiscuity, which in turn is symbolically associated with purity and health (once again we'll get to that). he also points out that preserving old, traditional models of farm functioning wasn't really aligned with the economic interests of anyone involved, but had to do with protecting the idoelogical, pro-religious and pro-nationalist atmosphere of family-based mode of production. it's therefore a problem of sexual economics.
such isolation with one's all survival interests contained to the family and sexual repression that it enforces causes developing idealising, pathologically strong attachments to the parents. reich suggests that according to him the oedipus complex is a symptom, caused by isolation preventing natural loosening of the bond between the mother and the child with time as the child starts engaging socially and sexually with peers, not a natural early stage of human sexuality development. while i seem to lean more towards freud's original take on the oedipus complex rn, i'll think more on this idea. he notes that 'national virtues' such as honor and sacrifice aren't really replicated in the everyday life of either of the classes most supportive of nationalism, but seem to result somewhere else, and connects them to sexual repression - i.e. glorification of self control and obligation stemming subconsciously from fixation on repressing one's impulses and keeping oneself 'pure'. also points out that these who move out early and have looser relationships with their family are less prone to ascetic nationalistic ideologies. this makes me think on whether the 2015-2025 surgeres of conservatism and nationalism in europe and the us aren't related to multiple young adults being unable to move out for economic reasons and remaining in home structures, in close ties with their family members, especially parents.
analysis of symbolic identification between one's homeland and the mother and the nation and the family - multiple examples of this identification, especially between the mother and motherhood and the homeland which feeds you, basically verbatim. once again reich also decided to slag off his fellow marxists for dismissing his takes as 'freudism', as if it was something negative. i very much respect his attitude here.
thus: the homeland = mother, leader = father, nation = family on the symbolic level, and these familial feelings are idealised ones born from sublimation of repressed sexual impulses. further discussion of the nazi, fascist and general conservative fixation on the authoritarian family as the fundament and condition of survival to the nation, race et cetera, the basis of these ideologies which can only exist because they replicate authoritarian family structures and complexes caused by these, while the structures replicate economic modes of production. this still does imply that attitudes within the humans and their relationships with each other are shaped by economic conditions, production et cetera, thus aligning with the marxist dialectical materialism still - again, reich argues with 'vulgar materialist' marxists, who have seemingly accused him of being a freudist and undialectical.
this surely was interesting to read.
chapter 3 - 'the race theory'
this chapter starts off with analysis of the nazi race theory and pointing out its illogical character - it discusses a bunch of contradictions, like using artificial breeds of animals as examples of 'natural law', mixing statements about interspecies mingling with different breeds within one species, ignoring the fact that genetic diversity = better chances of adaptation, and otherwise, and aims to prove that the root of the race theory was in fact metaphysical (effectively). points to interesting obsession with sexually transmitted diseases, particularly syphilis, and identification of that with the alleged racial 'degeneration' or 'poisoning' of the nation.. it was apparently one of hitler's main points against the austro-hungarian monarchy, and a point brought up surprisingly often in the nazi ideology later as well.
then reich discusses the objective - economic, in service of capitalism - and subjective, as opium for the masses, function of ideology. he also discusses the ideas nazi ideologists had about the ancient greeks, decline and fall of the roman empire, and other historic societies and ideas - boiling down to the idea that they fell due to strongly sexually coded 'degeneration of morals', giving in to dionysian element which, while as greek as any, the nazi historians identify as foreign - 'non aryan'. again, there's multiple examples named in this chapter of strong assciation between 'aryan' and 'sexually/morally pure' and 'non-aryan' with 'morally/sexually corrupt', hedonistic, uncontrolled, impulsive and pleasure-oriented: in other words, obsessive fear of that 'dionysian element' - uncontrolled sexuality, especially that of women and young people. 'degeneration' and 'poisoning of blood' is associated with being 'infected' with uncontrolled sexual urge, above anything else - surfacing of the id or 'es'(it) element in the human psyche, as identified by psychoanalysis. thus the obsession with purity of the race or whatever is at the core an obsession with maintaining control over one's sexual impulses.
reich does remark that such obsessive control isn't necessary when sexuality is healthy - i.e. people only need to control their dark impulses because dark impulses develop as a response to sexuality as a whole being marked with shame and guilt, repressed and 'mutating' in its isolation. this perversion of healthy sexuality as a result of repression enforces further repression and causes it to be more obsessive, and also causes it so the most repressed people exhibit the most overt sexual sadism and fetishism when they do lose control and their sexuality breaks loose.
chapter 4 - 'the swastika symbolism'
this is a relatively short chapter tracking the history of the swastika back to a probable prehistoric meaning as a sexual symbol, and implies that this meaning is unconsciously visible - since it resembles two human characters tangled together - and thus able to exploit the mystical feelings born in one's psyche out of sexual repression. i can't verify the accuracy as a non-historian, but this is a very interesting thesis. i would like to compare the history of swastika in buddhism to see if it could've indeed come from that source and then separated from it significantly. regardless of the historic background of the symbol itself, i can believe there's such as connection by association.
reich states that a matriarchal society - one where sexuality is controlled by women - would, according to him, be a society of 'democracy of labour', since the organisation of it would reflect a pleasure-centered mentality. interesting. he also states - which is very relevant - that while marxism celebrates labour, it seeks to minimise the amount of it in favour of time for leisure and socialising, which is also time for pleasure and more or less directly sexual activity - such as courtship or creative activity (related to sublimation). he believes that marxists are terrified of admitting that they do, in fact, want sexual liberation. he, once again, slags off fellow marxists for giving in to anti-sex moralism and refusing to admit to centering pleasure - he'll return to that in chapters 6 and 7, and possibly further on; i will also elaborate on that while discussing these chapters.
chapter 5 - 'the conditions of functioning of the authoritarian family in terms of sexual economics'
again a relatively short chapter, since it's moreso a conclusion of previous 4 ones as well as introduction to 6-7 and further elaboration from these. he discusses the 'madonna/whore complex' as well as glorification of the role of the woman as mother, and the way they are necessary to keep the woman willing to produce new servants for the nation and the capital via keeping her sexuality repressed. then he also discussed the importance of the threat of rape and being sexually 'shared' or 'corrupted' or otherwise pushed into promiscuity in the nazi propaganda, especially anti-soviet and anti-communist propaganda, targeted towards the german female population.
he discusses the focus of propaganda against 'cultural marxism' as a hedonistic movement pursuing happiness and pleasure in the material world, and how the importance of that as a revolutionary goal is seen by the fascists themselves more than it is seen by the marxists; and how counter-productive it is to remain in the sexual moralist framework and oppose these 'accusations'. once again, he believes marxists should admit that the revolution will change and impact sex life and sexual economics and modes of coupling as well, and that - according to him - if the goal of living for pleasure was more emphasised, marxists would be able to convince larger groups of people, since it's a notion one agrees with automatically. interesting thesis and has a potential certainly.
yes, so that's it for today, chapters 6 and 7 soon.
04.05.2024 - the rest of it, and final conclusions
my life was a mess for a while, so i didn't keep track of what i was reading, unfortunately. i did finish reich, though. unfortunately i didn't keep a coherent pace with this book, but i remember it quite well and i'm also holding it in my hand as i'm typing this to remind myself what i wanted to include - i will discuss chapters 6-7th, then the rest, and get to what turned out to be my takeaway. i need to say this book influenced me quite a lot, and i recommend it, though i was also painfully disappointed by the author at one point.
chapters 6 and 7 - discussing the idea of mysticism
these are the chapters in which reich discussed the role of religion in enforcing, maintaining and affirming sexual repression of the masses - his hypothesis is that the initial religious practices of humans as hunter-gatherers were affirming of sexuality and expressing reverence for orgasmic experiences, an affirmation of life; as humanity progressed towards a mechanistic system based on exploitation, however, mysticism separated itself from sexuality, and stood in opposition to it, eventually attempting to replace it - spiritual experiences painted as para-sexual here. interesting examples reich quotes include christian monks experiencing orgasms during heightened religious ecstasy. again, quite euro-centric; i would have to see an akin analysis of other religious such as a buddhism, though it does seem to be pretty accurate for christianity, protestant christianity above any, but also the guilt-ridden catholicism i grew up around.
very good, in my opinion, analysis of the way religion bases itself in sexual guilt - quoted cases of children raised in atheism who've started experiencing a need for prayer after being shamed for masturbation or otherwise expressing sexuality; apparently, there were many such cases in his practice, and these needs passed after being healed of the shame. there he identifies the reasons of oppressed groups whose sexuality is suppressed the most being overhwelmingly conservative against their own interest.
these chapters include analysis of some christian prayers on the psychoanalytic/oedipal ground, as the ways of seeking forgiveness from the father for the sin of masturbation or engaging with sexuality and genitalia otherwise, and a decent thesis on why the communist youth organisations have lost to the christian ones, with both having a program of being against the capital, et cetera - the reason is that the christians could offer a replacement for sexuality, while the communists did not dare to offer sexual education and ideological opposition to the sexual repression; he quotes the very few cases organisations that dealt with sexual economics did so, which have apparently drawn a lot of young crowd, making it very promising also in practice, but not something the most of the marxists of early 20th century had the courage for.
reich discusses the role of sexual economics in handling the repressed masses. very interesting analysis of the way sexual morality fights the monsters it created to prove itself useful - as perversions and sexual sadism are a result of supression of the natural sexuality, which in turn creates a need for further suppression to control the perverted instincts it created. it's very bravely fighting the problems it created for itself to maintain the argument that it's needed, or else these urges would emerge and lead to a global sodom and gomorrah type ordeal.
here he also said the thing that disappointed me immensely: he named homosexualism among the unnatural outlets for suppressed natural sexuality, alongside the sexual sadism, pornography and akin. this is a big point against his whole book - he's showing himself as a hypocrite, no better than the marxists he criticised, if he replicates the same homophobic narrative of sexual morality. oh well! that harms his points notably; otherwise these are very good chapters.
chapters 8-12 - reich's ideas on marxism and revolution
there's quite a lot here, but i think i'm able to touch on all of it in short in my final takeaway from this book. i have to say that's the book that convinced me to identify myself with marxism more, but simultaneously discouraged me towards engaging with politics. both rightfully so, and in accordance with the author's intentions, actually.
basically his idea is also that lenin's revolution failed eventually because it was done the wrong way around, i.e. he did the revolution, gained power over a society with learnt helplessness browbeaten through centuries of oppression, and only then tried to teach the society autonomy and responsibility. lenin had to lie to the masses to gain power (i.e. tell them the land would be their private property) which backfired (war against collectivisation), but was necessary for him to take power because the masses weren't in a mindset where they'd be ready and willing to take responsibility for themselves. he had too little time and so the society failed to self-govern, and lenin had to step farther and farther from his initial idea of gradual death of the state as the attempts to install self-governance failed, and so he had to empower the state further to avoid collapse and chaos.
meanwhile, according to reich, if the society gained awareness of not needing the state and politicians to be organised and capability of self-organisation based on econimics of labour - both in terms of knowing it's possible and believing it's possible - then a revolution would have mass support, with a society that was already prepared mentally to take responsibility for itself and govern itself. in other words, it's very probable that it should be an organic process which comes from the masses achieving not only class consciousness, but mental capability for autonomy first (by means such as fighting sexual repression which causes a childlike relation to parents preserved in the superego, which in turn causes a need for authority and lack of instinct and self-confidence to organise one's own labour), rather than trying to take power first, and then mold the masses to communist liking.
reich's theory, which convinced me to marxism properly, generally goes like this:
truth is, reich doesn't even blame stalin, as he believes if not stalin than another dictator would have appeared; as stalin just answered the masses' need for an authoritarian leader, which resulted from their psychological structure: a need to be governed and distrust for other people not being kept in discipline.
therefore, he believes you cannot first do revolution then teach the masses responsibility, because that'll fail as they won't learn soon enough and your revolution will fall to authoritarian opportunism, and because that'll take you lying to them and using unfair means to assume power and set you in a bad position at the start, you have to teach them responsibility first so they can govern themselves and take that responsibility in the revolution, and do their part.
the reason it convinced me to be a marxist (i guess?) is that it explains why so far communism didn't work so far - sufficiently.
this is the best explaination i've ever seen: economics based explainations about the sabotage don't convince me - of course it had an impact, it had to have, but they always sounded a bit like reaching - if communism is really the most rational solution that would make people the happiest in the long run and really can work on the logistic level, then that shouldn't prevent revolutionaries them from establishing it, especially after making the most difficult first steps. then if one said the revolutionaries were exhausted or whatever, or not strong in spirit enough, that's too much responsibility put on a few individual people, and has always seemed disproportional.
on the other hand, an explanation that says a very crucial element was missing - which is the individual workers taking initiative, taking more power and responsibility for themselves and feeling responsible for their resources and labour to organise it - explains why there weren't the latter points which required that happening first, integrally. it also explains why it was the case, which appears confirmed by other phenomena such as fascism. the whole theory plays into freud's "all connection is libidinal" framework, assuming that allowing libidinal connection with people outside of family (i.e. age appropriate sexual relationships with peers, including homoerotic friendship and whatnot) is what would lead humans to feel more connected on the community level and enable communism and internationalism, and into the whole "politics is a function of psychosexuality" thing i like so much.
some say there are perfect arguments for every individual to convince them for anything, and you just have to know what hits their buttons. reich didn't know - i mean, he's been dead for a long while - but his theory does hit my buttons in terms of being convinced to marxism. even as i was also irritated by the talk of 'orgon' by the end of the book - reich's other theories which have been disproven and are considered pseudoscientific. i'm far from endorsing and affirming him as a character in general, but i do agree with the theses he proposed in this book, and i've found it enriching and worth recommending, particularly to these interested in psychoanalysis to any degree, or looking into communism, but not convinced.
this being said, his theory also supports what i've been always leaning towards - which is that politics, as an inherently irrational game, isn't a viable means to achieve rational organisation of humanity and its resources, and the only way to bring the revolution about with any capability of working is teaching people autonomy and combinating sexual repression and hatred of sexuality in education and public sphere; sex ed, available contraception and abortion et cetera are relevant elements of it. the only way is organic work from the very basic level of teaching the people to be responsible for themselves and not terrified of that responsibility, then one may start teaching them to think outside of the capitalist framework and conceptualise ability to take that responsibility for their resources and labour as well.
i'm planning on looking into communist theory more, particularly interested in lenin's "the state and revolution", but i might end up calling myself an apolitical marxist or other superficially contradictory term; i still harbour a hatred of politics, including political means of achieving even productive ideas. if i ever change my mind about it, i'll of course let you know; so far my mind has not changed in regards to being irritated by constant exposure to political takes that just ring like white noise to me.
with this, i am happy to inform the book was finished on 21.04.2024 and i've enjoyed it a lot.