The Compatibility of Freud and Marx

At first, the marriage of Freud and Marx in academia seems a bit out of place. It initially seems to be a senseless attempt to encapsulate two different fields of study, and to place them in similar spheres would be to diminish their individual professionalism and importance. Despite being distinct areas of interest, they do share parallels that should be properly analyzed and discussed cohesively.

Sigmund Freud is seen as the founder of psychoanalysis, and more generally, of modern psychology. Responsible for uncovering and studying the unconscious mind, Freud brought to light certain mechanisms which drive individuals, that are absent from one's natural cognition. Understandably so, this discovery had a profound impact on our supposed potentiality and actions -- the idea of mental workings beyond our individual awareness, driving our instinctual assumptions and activities, was a grave revelation. Likewise, much of it was repressed and met with harsh criticism when first introduced. The idea of an "unconscious" agent of action was seen as obscene and dehumanizing to individualist pursuits. One's idealized desires were now being undermined as simply being partial products of unconscious mechanisms, that were outside an individual's control or presumptive awareness. It was a frightening for most to even consider. 

Marxism takes a similar approach in its analysis. Marx too was responsible for uncovering social mechanisms that have escaped the supposed reality of societies, but were always present and crucial to functioning. He theorized all societies engage in a creation of surplus value and its successive allocation. Who allocates this surplus is a question that is answered by the organization and structure of the particular society, albeit unknowingly to those within it. In feudalism, such allocation was done by the lords in distributing the surplus created by the serfs. In slavery, it was the slaveholders. In modernity, it is allocated by 'capitalists' -- or under the corporate model, by a board of directors. Like Freud, Marx brings forth the uncomfortable truth that has escaped the collective consciousness (rather than the individual). He discusses a social apparatus that has always existed, but has been absent from the mentality of the community. Similar to Frued's analysis of the ramifications of the unconsciousness on human behavior and conditioning, the allocation of the surplus is responsible for cultivating and molding the community culture, its cherished beliefs, and its wants. Once again, similar to Freud, we see workings that have been absent from human awareness, but have been crucial in its development. And just as Freud's developments, they have been suppressed all the same, and for similar reasons, although you could argue analyses of the unconscious have become relatively mainstream.

This is where the main similarity lies, which validates the merging the two fields for respective questions that require it. Such an approach is practiced by the likes of philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who adheres more to Lacan's methodology, and psychologist Wilhelm Reich, who analyzed class relations through a Freudian lens. Personally, I see much of Freudian psychology to be lacking and being too speculative where it should be substantiated. The works of Jacques Lacan and Carl Jung are perhaps more compatible with Marxian thought, especially Jung's work on the collective unconsciousness, however Freud's analysis still has its uses despite its recurring limitations.