>I haven't read this particular book of Reich's, although I think I
>understand the extract that was posted, having read some of his other
>works. I doubt whether this can really be an explanation of fascism all
>in itself. It might be a valid partial explanation insofar as it
>describes certain preconditions for the emergence of fascism: i.e.
>sexual repression. But this does not explain why x becomes a fascist and
>y doesn't, if both x and y are repressed. One would have to claim that
>ALL of those people who are sexually repressed become fascists and NONE
>of those who are not sexually repressed become fascists, which hardly
>seems plausible, especially if one is also trying to claim, as I think
>Reich probably did, that sexual repression is widely generalised in
>society. In such an explanation the terms 'fascism' and 'repression'
>would simply become synonyms. This would not fit very well with certain
>widely accepted ideas about fascism, that it is a modern phenomenon,
>that it is tied up with political populism and nation states, etc. This
>looks like one of those explanations that date back to the time when
>psychoanalysis was still young and believed that it alone could explain
>everything.
>Tahir
agree with Tahir. Also, since you read Foucault on occasion B, have you ever read Foucault's critique of the Freudo -Marxists? That was pretty persuasive in my moving away from what I've come to see now as the limitations of the Frankfurt buoyz' analyses. I may have a copy floating around and I'll shoot it your way if you haven't read it.
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)