The Authoritarianism of Monotheism, Marxism and Freudianism
Abstract theories reach their general conclusions by disregarding facts. The greater the generalization that a doctrine employs the greater the number of facts it ignores. Yet, the more impersonal, authoritarian and dogmatic it becomes. Abstract doctrines tend to use human material for stuffing their idols while the most abstract of them totally dispense with the human factors. And what ideologies falsify the most is their own subject. The simple reason is that they hyperbolize it the most. For instance, Marxism misrepresents the driving force of history while Freudianism falsifies the nature of psychosexual development.
Thus, historical materialism regards history as driven by economic activity and class conflicts. It evaluates people by the class they belong to and by their relation to means of production. It omits the role of the individual in history. Freudian psychology constructs personality from instinctual forces modified by family lifestyle and tribal history. It neglects the effects of congenital dispositions, adequate frustrations and genital desensitization on mind. Both Marxism and Freudianism regard the individual as shaped by collective or instinctive forces. They construct personality from impersonal factors. The former idolizes production relations and technology while Freudianism/ the latter fetishizes sexual instinct and early tribal and childhood experience.
By all appearances Marx and Freud projected their own sense of deficiency into their theories. The central dogmas of their doctrines may be seen as specific extrapolations of their erogenous deficiency. Their conjectures seem to be formed under the pressure of their own personal insufficiencies. The speculations of the one gravitated towards material deficiency and those of the other focussed on sexual dissatisfaction. The generalizations that they reached about personal wellbeing were biased and exaggerated the role of the corresponding deficiency. It is hardly surprising that that the compensations for the same deficiencies occur as the main stereotypic traits of the authors’ ethnos.
Both doctrines disrespect individuality although they aim at improving the life of individuals. They readily sacrifice individual needs or desires for the common welfare that is what they believe it must be. They prescribe measures for social and personal wellbeing without being objective about the characteristics of personal happiness.
The antagonism intrinsic to both the class and Oedipus conflicts resembles the model of the religious moral. It insinuates that desires are originally irresponsible, greedy, egocentric, aggressive, uncivilized, and unsympathetic and must be restricted. According to these doctrines the positive social development requires repression of individuals’ needs. They justify social coercion and are authoritarian by nature. They put too small a price on the capacity of the human for reasoning and empathy. They prefer to coerce rather than to educate. They prefer to create rules instead of cultivating responsibility. They prefer discipline and obedience to development. Like circumcising religions they choose to remove sensitivity instead of to utilize it in a constructive way.
Monotheism, Marxism and Freudianism are conservative and totalitarian doctrines. They repudiate the manifestations of free will that are at variance with their ideals. Undoubtedly, it is the desensitising role of circumcision that has helped them all the way.
|Autocratic character of monotheistic, marxist and freudian ideologies|
|idolizes||economic activity||sex-drive||invisible almighty|
|central credo and impersonal driving forces||history is a product of development of production relations||mentality is product of instincts, family lifestyle and tribal history||everything is a product of a supreme will|
|disrespects the role of||individual in history||inborn personal dispositions, asexual frustrations, inflicted erogenous deficiency||individual in general|
|driving force||class conflict||Oedipus conflict||moral conflict|
|intrinsic antagonism||oppressed and oppressing classes||pleasure and pain, id and superego, instinct and reason||good and bad, faith and infidelity|
is achieved via
|restriction of ownership and acquisitiveness||repression of instinctual libidinal desires||suppression of individual will, desires including sexual|
|mostly falsifies||driving forces of history||nature of psychosexual development, tribal imprinting of fear||the concept of free will|
|mostly exaggerates||class consciousness, ownership slavery||children’s sexuality, fear of emasculation||infallibility and universality of god’s commandments|
|impedes understanding of||culture, history, civilization, spirituality||cultivation of sexuality, nature of sexual perversions, criminogenic role of sexuality, mental effect of circumcision||social, moral and rational progress and nature|
|more or less indirectly encourages||ownership suppressing moral, reliance on political authority, obedience, envy, personal irresponsibility, class and social intolerance, social segregation||sexually repressive moral, circumcision, intolerance to sexual deviations, reliance on psychologists’ authority||sexually repressive moral, reliance on authority, docility, dependence, suppression of free will and sexuality, circumcision, marriage, religious intolerance|
|supress||personal responsibility and true conscience, independent reasoning, individuality, objective understanding, empathy, constructive use of the senses, sexuality and sensitivity|
|stimulate||reliance on authority, guilt, dependence, personal irresponsibility, antagonistic moral, externalizing dissatisfaction and attributing incapacity and frustration to external causes, ideological segregation and intolerance, clannishness|
|justify||moral and social coercion and violence, sexual suppression and repression|