You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Nowadays what we call a “radical” is one who says he wishes to drastically change society into a collectivist state. The radical of to-day seems to be the opponent of individual freedom, and would explain the woes of the world in economic terms. He can be differentiated from the liberal in his impatience for change, and in an ostensible faith in the rapid mutability of human nature. This could itself be evidence of a depreciation of the individual. But psychoanalysis returns us to the individual, throwing light on the philosophy by examining the philosopher, and on the theory by examining the theorist. So what makes the political radical? So far as I know, no outstanding revolutionary figure has completed a classic Freudian analysis. Perhaps no one ever will.
It is not implied that a complacent satisfaction with contemporary human society is a sign of normality, or that a willingness to work for an improved society is pathological. History has shown that what we call progress has been the result of heroic work and sacrifice of great individuals. Freud himself is an example of this. But the six radicals analysed were far from heroic men. Their political philosophy was inseparable from their symptoms. It is unlikely that they will be crucified for their ideas, hence it is unlikely that they will change society. What does seem important is to find whether the need for a collective society may not represent something deeper and more personal than perpetual class conflict, and the concentration of wealth.