V    Dialectics


19.    Object-subject

Most immediately the want for life becomes sensually manifest in the experience of each and every one that his or her life is being menaced and restricted, that is in each and every one living illness as the condition of their existence in capitalism [Krankheit als kapitalistischem Dasein], and as the need for change of this condition, that is as the need for production, this need being inseparably tied to the pressure of suffering, which is always very close to the need for change, the need for production. Illness in the sense of a contradictory moment [Moment] in life, carries within itself both the germ and the energy of its own negation, the will for life. But illness is at the same time inhibition of life, the negation of life. However, as negating life, illness is not only a negation in the abstract sense, as when life is considered to be an isolated fact of biology, which it is only from appearance [erscheinungsmaessig] regarding the life process. Quite on the contrary, illness is both and in quite the same manner the product and the negation of the "living" conditions, and this means, that illness is the product and the negation of the ruling relations of production in society. As negation thus determined, illness is at the same time the force of production per se (productive force), which has the power to change the living conditions to which it "owes" its rise. So far as to the function of illness in an objective view.

As to the subjective view, the person in illness is forced by his suffering to make his existence and his life an object in his consciousness. And here it becomes quite clear that the function of health and welfare combined to their institutions and especially the relation between physician and patient is a thoroughly reactionary one: the patient’s isolation is intensified, his illness is being taken from him corresponding "his" expectations, it is administrated like an object and exploited in order to create surplus value. The success of "healing" gets reified in the re-established labour force (fitness for work) of the sick person, which represents his functionability in a life-inimical and illness-creating social production process of capitalism. In this consists the so-called "rehabilitation" of the ill person.

Physician and patient:
In his illness and in his condition of being a patient the single one experiences his role as an object quite intensively and like the focus point in a mirror, quite in defencelessness, loneliness [Vereinzelung] and rightlessness [Rechtlosigkeit]. His impossibility to act is experienced bodily and is sensually certain [sinnlich gewiss] in his looking out for treatment or help. One of the most important functions of the physician in every situation of therapy, as an agent ruling all current social relations, consists in his task to affirm permanently and continuously the constitution of the patient as a person who must be treated in any case, the physician as an agent ruling by that all social relations as they are. The relation between physician and patient anchored and organized in all institutions therefore works best as a repression in permanence against the progressive impulsation [Moment] in illness, being protest in every case and aiming at becoming resistance with substantial effects [materialisierter Widerstand]. The pathogenic role of remaining object is guaranteed especially by the state in the so-called acute stage of illness.

In other words, in the relationship between physician and patient within the health system both capitalism and the state have established and maintain a top instrument of oppression. While illness is in its acute stage and in need of treatment, the state employs live munition against the patient by delivering him, deprived of all rights, to the physician who is the omnipotent one in the doctor-patient-relationship. The patient lacks all kinds of rights and is unable in any way to get influence, be it about the whether, be it about the how of his treatment, the basis of which he himself has established before, by creating surplus value, paying taxes and social contributions, but now being unable to control or even to determine the treatment, which the doctor is acting out against him. If necessary the patient is put under tutelage, incapacitated, interned and murdered by euthanasia. The protest in illness, that is its progressive part (progressive moment of illness), therefore, will reach consciousness, articulate itself and become manifest as resistance only if the object role of the patient has been overcome and abolished in and through collective action [in der kollektiven Aufhebung der Objektrolle]. The physician, on the other hand, in following his contract, is concerned with nothing but the reinforcement of the reactionary moment of illness by means of his individualizing and atomizing treatment. Nevertheless, the intensification of the isolation and individualization favours the becoming conscious of the patient and the setting free of life energy, which during the acute stage of illness is the most powerful one as protest and resistance against illness-conditions in social relations (fever and more rapid pulses as well as the so-called violent tendencies in so-called mental disordered people represent quite drastic hints proving this reinforcement).

Single person [Einzelner] - collective:
By realizing relations, circumstances and conditions as belonging to the objective side of my existence, relations which act as determinations against myself [Fremdbestimmung] and by turning those relations first of all to objects of my conceptual thinking, that means researching and investigating them, I turn myself into a subject, be it only germinally; but radically altering those relations and determinations makes me being a subject. – To do the first thing alone and as a single person is nearly impossible, to do the second thing as a single person is impossible at all.

It follows that the individuum as a mere individuum is damned to the role of remaining always an objective thing (isolation). Only cooperation in connection with solidarity together with other ones renders able the movement from the object to the subject. It follows, that all persons who are nothing but isolated objects within the social relations can become subjects only through collective practice based on a cooperation in solidarity.

By that the single persons, if cooperating in solidarity, have already changed for themselves the social relations, so far as they form a part of them, and this is due to the simple fact that they now constitute as a collective – and no longer only as single persons – a part of the social relations. Single persons are as objects of the social conditions nothing but victims who are unable even to defend themselves. But being together in and as a collective they represent immediately for themselves the visible possibility, and to some extent really, of becoming a subject on their own. This change of the social relations for themselves [fuer sich] bears within itself already the germ of their change in themselves [an sich].

It follows:

Every kind of medical treatment (so-called care for the sick) being improved by a higher intensity in the methods or by any refinement else (be it for example by enhancing of a community-based deployment of the doctor’s functions, e.g. community psychiatry, Institute for Mental Health, hospitals in which the classes are abolished, so-called single-class hospitals etc.), while all those medical functions are established by education, tradition and state-control and thus forming and determining the relation between physician and patient in the one or other way, is objectively nothing but a management that threatens and harms the patients, and every reform or refinement of it serves objectively to stabilize the murderous ruling relations. The relations of persons one to another are to be understood from the beginning as relations from one object to another. In the case of the relation between physician and patient, for example, both patient and physician in this partnership, each in a quite specific manner, are nothing but objects of the same subject, that is of capitalism. The patient as the object of the seeming subject physician puts his pressure of suffering and all his needs and wants and his claims for change in the hand of the physician, according to the preset program, and the physician for his part, following his function in its objective regard as administrator of the capital turns himself into the administrator of illness. If the physician is "successful" he produces a change in the form of what is called "health", a thing of superstition which is regarded perhaps by the patient as the real fulfilling of his dreams, and that is done by the physician by having "liberated" the patient from specific symptoms: it is for the capitalism, that the physician, according to his function in capitalism, repairs only the patient’s labour force so that it can be consumed and exploited again in the capitalist process of production of surplus and profits.

All the relations between single, isolated ones aim for the abolition of their being objects. This is done through a collective practice directed against the forces that are determining the historical process until now, namely the forces of capitalism (liberation movement based on solidarity). What is not produced in our collectives is the fetish "individual health", not mutual appreciation of each other as interchange of values and commodities, called sympathy. What is produced instead is solidarity and the collective need for change. The changed consciousness is equally prerequisite and result of the practised political warfare; for only in the struggle for a socialism like that exists the real chance for self-realization.


20.     Sublation (liberation) of the object role by collectivity

Cognition [Erkenntnis]* is possible and meaningful for human beings only under the one condition that the re-cognizing subject brings about changes in the re-cognized things. Any modifying, creative cognition whatsoever is preceded by the sense-certainty [sinnliche Gewissheit] concerning the object-role of the consciousness in its relation to Being [bezueglich des Seins], just like the object-role of the single, isolated one with respect to the material conditions of its social being. The standstill and inhibition of thinking, as well as the inhibtition of vitality and of life, which are altogether experienced on the level of sense-certainty, find their specific expression within certain symptoms of illness such as: inability to work [Arbeitsstoerungen], bad feeling [Depressionen], problems in sexuality, anxiety and so on.

* We refer to "cognition" in the sense of Hegel

If the real* (effective) relations between subject and object get worked out by collectivity, the role of being merely an object as it is represented by the single, isolated person herself is turned into an object of cognition, thus into an object of a dialectical proceeding, which not only leads to cognition, but also brings about change.

* Real means "actual, to act", in the sense of "to be effective", "to effectuate", also "to be true".

The role of consciousness now comprehended as being nothing but an object in relation to Being [Objektrolle des Bewusstseins bezueglich des Seins] is resolved in the activity of the developed and developing cognition and consciousness, an activity which, as we mentioned, is bringing about change in the constituted Being, thus constituting the new context of a new, i.e. changed Being [seinsveraendernde Taetigkeit des ... Bewusstseins]. By that is reached a qualitative new level: sublation [Aufhebung] that means negation [Negation] and, at the same moment, affirmation [Erhaltung] of the former lonely person now in collectivity, forming a new Being for the former single and isolated person now with a permanently growing spread and extension. The collective now is a new quality both in objective and subjective view: objectively, because the relations of production in capitalism now are in confrontation with a counter-power by which those relations of production in capitalism are forced to react by some specific patterns, and in subjective view the new quality consists in that the former lonely, falsificated, mutilated and inert consciousnesses come together in the proceeding development of the new quality of collective consciousness, in the community of all the consciousnesses who are there, united and sublated in the practised activity of the collective. In its confrontation with the counter-power of the capitalist system the collective is permanently and simultaneously both the object and the subject of the process of change with which it is interacting.

The consciousness of the single one of being an object in the process of capitalist production and exploitation is at the same time the driving force for the abolition of these very factors of the capitalist system.

But this level of collective consciousness is to be worked out permanently again and again and has to be defended against the destructive effects of capitalism in the every-day’s process of production and reproduction disturbing the single person continuously, and also the defending of the achieved level in consciousness is an every-day and every-night agitation-practice [Agitationsarbeit] within the continuously expanding collective.

The ill person entering the collective doesn't remain the single, isolated one he or she was before entering the collective. Also the goal of his or her participation is not to leave the collective as a save and sound person ("cured") – as would be the goal of e.g. an outpatient clinic, a doctor’s practice or some other support organization – thus being nothing but the same isolated person as before and further on being left deprived of all protection, as well as defenceless and unarmed to the same unchanged ongoing principle of reality of the pathogenic and life-inimical society in capitalism. Rather, in the collective each ill person begins to turn his or her illness into a process of objectivization; a process that represents the development of the collective as a whole and this process must be carried out by everybody:


21.    Multi-focal expansionism - "Focus"

Starting from the manner, in which the collective works and the way in which it is organized: inter-agitation between single persons and agitation in groups, work-groups in epistemology, political actions and the ongoing expanding of the collective – there is developed the principle of the multi-focal expansionism which is a new quality. This principle of multi-focal expansionism in a germinal sense already exists within the essential structures of the patients' self-organization: each ill person as a such one is a focus (nucleus of crystallization) of the social contradictions on a certain level, that is more or less developed. By means of the process in personal or group agitation these contradictions in each single person are worked out and unfolded, so that everybody step by step and in permanent repetition overcomes the stadium of his personal isolation: At first with regard to his or her partner in personal agitation, then with regard to the agitation group and finally, the former single and isolated person, now part of the collective, for his part will experience and shape the reality and effectiveness of the collectivity. In this process, constantly repeated, everybody goes through the stages:

subjectively subject - objectively object,
subjectively object - objectively subject,

and within the consciously done production of collective consciousness everybody will produce finally the moments of the identity between Being and consciousness, that is the new quality of the political identity will be experienced and will be produced (37). Focus means, as we know from rays optics: a converging lens, for example, that collects all beams of light that pass the lens in one point, the focal point, the focus, the burning point of collectivity. But focus also means hearth in the certain sense that such a hearth is a starting point for effects, for example a hearth of disturbances or that such a focus can be compared also to a simple cooking-stove or range, which produces warmth while working. And by that we have determined the word "focus" in its double sense: to be a point of collectivity, focus on the one hand, and to be a starting point, a hearth on the other hand, "focus" the denomination of a dialectic identity, that means a contradictory one.

Every ill person now represents in a specific way some focus. In an objective view, everybody, as a single person represents the focus of social contradictions. But by means of the process of consciously unfolding of the contradictions of protest and inhibition, collected in illness, the quality "focus" as the burning point of the social relations (contradictions) is turned into a subjective quality, and that means that the ill person – now having become able to handle in a quite clear manner and in full consciousness the social contexts of his suffering – has achieved to change from the lonely and isolated person he or she was in the beginning into a focus, who now is really a such one as well in subjective as in objective view.

Illness as consciousness of suffering, as known inhibition and suppression, is both the prerequisite and the tendentious sublation of the quality "focus", as a point of collectivity (burning point), in the new quality "focus" as a hearth. Only through the awareness of his or her total object role, through the consciousness of illness as inhibition and suppression, the ill person is enabled to liberate conscious protest, the progressive moment in illness. The process of turning the quality "focus" (inhibition) into the quality "hearth" represents the emancipation of the object, done by cooperation and solidarity. And just by that and by nothing else a treated one [ein Behandelter] becomes a subject, an active one [ein Handelnder].


22.    Dialectics of sexuality

In all societies, formed and organized by capitalism, sexuality cannot be defined except in a thoroughly formalistic and abstract manner; that means, that sexuality can't be conceived of as something which exists already. Quite on the contrary, sexuality has to be conceived of as something, that, for being achieved effectively, needs to be developed yet.

The basic fact, the only one in which Sigmund Freud was right, consists in that the significations of all our lived experiences are sedimented within the substantial context (materiality) of our bodies* [Niederschlag der Erlebnissignifikanzen in die Materiatur des Koerpers] (somatisation, psychogenic disturbances of the functions in our organs and so on); so, what is categorized as the syndromes of the so-called psychoses, neuroses and schizophrenic disturbances are but manifestations of the devastating impact on our bodies resulting from the above-mentioned sedimentation of the significations of our lived experiences.

*Explanation of "significations of our lived experiences sedimented within the substantial context (materiality) of our bodies" (from previously unpublished PF/SPK agitations, October 23, 2017):

Significations: everything and everybody is signified.

A piece of wood = a piece of wood? No: a piece of wood is what it means. What does "means" mean? The piece of wood can be waste, something for sale, e.g. as cedar wood a commodity. Did the piece of wood determine that? The piece of wood doesn't care. Did you determine whether the piece of wood is a table, waste or a piece of the Holy See? But you know that wood can mean all of this. If not, you risk to be put in the loony bin. Thus: Significations come from elsewhere, have nothing to do with the substance, the material. From everything you get meanings in the head and body that have not grown inside you. If you were alone in the world with a piece of wood, you could differentiate it from e.g. iron, you could notice that it is cracking, dry; then each of you, the piece of wood and you, would be for each other. But that way all this has nothing to do with you, comes from others, strangers, all the relations of production included, everything under occupation by forces which are alien to you [fremdbesetzt], everything alienated.

Here, in the text it's about sexuality: Think, you have a relationship with a woman or a man, could you do something from human to human? You have seen advertisements, films, heard songs, know what a woman or a man is good for, but not what a woman or a man is good for yourself = the body is already ruined by the signifiers. In the case of a piece of wood, you don't feel yourself like wood, for instance like this: wood is a dead tree, was once a plant, is light, there is warmth in it, it is hard, also airy, you can fantasize. Have you ever had wood in your hand? Neither do I. You of your own have no relationship to wood at all. If I hold wood in my hand and I notice something woody, I breathe differently, notice other body processes – that doesn’t happen. A devout Christian is allowed to kiss a piece of the Holy See and has feelings, as he should have when he kisses his child. Again, towards the child he has completely other feelings which are not appropiate to the child.

Let your fantasy unwind: the whole body from the toes to the tips of the hair is torn apart by significations and occupied by forces which are alien to him and which make the body inaccessible to yourself and to the other. This is not unimportant, from this there result at some point slaughter, slaughterhouse, they say operating theaters. You have recently been X-rayed, you fall down, in the morning the first cigarette, adrenalin level goes up, more sugar is burned - you are not as strong as you look. You don't know all that because you are under the influence of the signifiers. Esoterics practice for many years, through meditation in order to perceive a piece of wood as such. It is not about a return to nature, not about wood, but about society, about the people you are with. With them it’s just the same (non)relation as to the piece of wood, and that's not a good thing. Notice of termination due to overcrowding: too much "furniture", people are considered junk and thrown in the garbage so that the apartment rooms are fitting. The rooms, too, are subject to other signifiers. It would be socialist if, in the case of overcrowding, e.g. the Heidelberg Castle was put at the people’s disposal.

There is an entire branch of science that deals with the signifiers, the phenomenology, e.g. Husserl: Cartesian meditations, you learn to list the properties of wood, but you don't get one step closer to the wood. Significations = the materiality is governed [die Materiatur wird verwaltet]. Therefore: crack the signifiers, break the signifiers of domination!

Freud, in his dullness due to his membership of the bourgeois class, never was willing or allowed to work out a fertile theoretical concept of this approach of his and bring it to the point and to the conclusion, disregarding all the consequences. (38) Psychoanalysis works only on the level of ideas, but sexuality, being an indispensable expression of life, which is setting free life-energy, therefore, in psychoanalysis mostly can't neither be seized and worked out nor realized. What appears as an improvement in healing and treatment, therefore, is nothing but the absence of certain symptoms, especially of the most disturbing ones, an adaption to the norms of a behaviour in sexuality, which is nothing but a petty bourgeois one.

Wilhelm Reich, then, was the first who attempted to turn Freud's theory from the head to its feet (39). Researching the disturbances in sexual functions, while assuming that these disturbances were caused by "psychologic" factors and vice versa, he by and by succeeds in proceeding to the beginnings of a dialectic and historic view. This view takes him down to the ground of the essential contradiction that has always worked between sexuality as a function of life and its permanent breaking caused by the forces of nature acting against human societies in the beginning to which were added later on the man-made violent forces of capitalism, nowadays organized and acting as a world-wide system of forces, reinforcing in an exponential manner the inhibitions formerly only caused by the forces of nature (40).

Following this conceptual approach of W. Reich, based on his dialectics of history, in the SPK it became comprehensible in a quite self-understanding manner that illness itself had to be conceived of as the one ruling antagonism and contradiction in life itself and that therefore illness had to be conceived of as thoroughly life-broken-in-itself, and all life as being broken from before its beginning nowadays only can consist of and exist in illness.

To the destructive force of capitalism, which has enforced the forces of nature to the highest degree of destruction of any life everywhere at an increasing rate, menacing with death every kind of life with omnipresent growing tendency, correponds, at the level of the single one, a self-destruction, the transformation of sexuality into anxiety where are focused all the self-destructive involvements, self-destruction being inherent to this anxiety.

If you want to get a concrete knowledge about sexuality in its respective phenomena throughout history, you have to analyze the surroundings, the socio-economic and the cultural conditions in order to comprehend all of its functions. The necessities that arise from the fact that the human beings always have to care about how to reproduce their living conditions, living conditions which in former times mankind had to extort by permanent new efforts from the natural forces that threatened them everywhere; necessities, needs and living conditions for the accomplishment of which the human being of nowadays has to pay by submitting himself to the ruling social order of the capitalist system – all these necessities do not only work against sexuality. Rather, it must be assumed that the separation between sexuality and the whole of the functions which deal with the reproduction of the economic and cultural living conditions is not possible at all. Whoever speaks of sexuality, or means sexuality when he speaks, can make himself understood only if he at least knows that he moves inside the categorical and epistemological system of economy and administration. Whatever he or she may intend by sexuality – he or she may think, for example, of his or her affective experiences of sexual nature – can of course only be communicated in an abstract and very general manner, since these experiences refer to feelings that already have become conscious enough, but in doing so, he or she is neither able to grasp specific feelings (in relation to sexuality) nor will he or she be able to know if the experiences considered by him/her as sexual, or the experiences communicated to him or her by others, are really more than some sediments of feelings of functional relationships that have nothing or almost nothing to do with sexuality. Consider, for example the extremeously strange phenomena of nymphomany or satyriasis (kinds of most exaggerated sexual drive in women and men) and you soon will experience that those phenomena, which at the first glance seem to be expressive forms of a flabbergasting sexual activity indeed are nothing but the highest degrees of self-defence against sexuality, because sexuality in the cases of satyriasis and nymphomany is based on pleasure-fear [W. Reich, Lust-Angst], wherein this exaggerated "sexual activity" seems to be the only means to inactivate this pleasure-fear. If it were possible to isolate neatly a sexual behaviour like that by putting away all economic and cultural components, what then would remain, never would be sexuality, but the anxiety which determines a sexual behaviour like that.

Who looks out for original forms of sexuality in order to reconstruct them has to refer to descriptions of communities of life which easily could impress him to take them for lost paradises of a quite permissive sexuality because they are up to the most extent different to civilization and culture of nowadays, apart from their being sometimes a quite profitable source for literature.

The general promiscuity in the so-called primeval horde which was free of restrictions, had no ban on incest and obviously did not take into account the age difference of the partners served as a function of the constant maintenance of optimal living conditions for this community. It was not at all liberated sexuality, but rather the result of the impulses urged by external threats that induced community members to give themselves the greatest possible cohesion and to delimit themselves in the face of the attacks of other primeval hordes and their assaults on the material conditions of survival that had to be protected, a necessity that most time required all efforts of self-defence.

It was W. Reich who worked out (The Invasion of Compulsory Sex-Morality! - Der Einbruch der Sexualmoral) how sexuality is abruptly turned into a complete different one by passing from the primeval communist societies to those of the patriarchal system. To the establishment of the partriarchal system, where on the one hand property is being stabilized and perpetuated from the father to the son and so on, all along the succeeding generations, corresponds, on the other hand, the uttermost restriction of sexuality, which means in terms of psychoanalysis that, starting from the earliest stages of childhood, all pleasure arising from sexuality [Genitalitaet] is more and more being repressed in order to be replaced by oral and anal pleasure satisfaction. Formerly the persons firstly needed to be together and to constitute some being together if they wanted and in order to practise sexuality. But now the same being together took place in order to take the meals together and thus a new habit had been imposed by force, provoked by the sole purpose and the only intention of perverting pleasure from a sexual one to an oral one.

Due to such constraints to form coalitions, the autonomy and spontaneity of the single persons are increasingly restricted and suppressed. Tendencies of centralization surrounded by interpersonal relations in which each role and function is getting a quite specialized one, permanently trained by fixation and repetition, and also the submission of the single person under the mechanisms of order and prohibition, these tendencies are getting more and more favoured, creating artificially hostilities from person against person and from the one family unit or tribe against the others. As a result of these hostile delimitations these associations of almost totally de-sexualized families finally clash violently. This expression of hostility, whether as a hidden one or in open performance of war-games in theatre or reality, do we know up to nowadays.

The personal behaviour since the establishing of the original capitalist and patriarchal system therefore involves also sado-masochist tendencies, neurotic anxiety, the need for models and leaders in order to get a so-called "self", a personal ego which can be perseverated and iterated for a lifetime. Modalities of behaviour like these, in the view of W. Reich, have nothing to do with genital drive impulses, but nevertheless they represent in fact sexuality because of having been sexualized in secondary processes of sexual development, now sometimes having become a deviant one in a clinical sense. In any case those mechanisms dealing with nonsexual drives since the earliest times of childhood urge inhibitions and barriers which block the ability to become impressionable by especially genital stimuli, favouring tendencies of oral consumption which in tendency can become a more and more aggressive and destructive one (see bullemy) and anal perseveration and retentiveness which appear as the accumulation of possession and defending it against everybody else by whatever means and weapons available.

Under these circumstances, therefore, sexual conduct doesn't exist at all, it can no longer be considered as an autonomous, self-expressing component in our behaviour. Rather, it only represents a kind of glue or cement in the context of the relations of economic exchange between men and nature and between men and men. Sexual conduct is in each detail determined and governed by the necessities of the economic system. Where the persons in sexual interaction believe to have made their choices based on primary or secondary signs of sympathy and sexual attraction, it must be assumed, if we regard things from an objective point of view and as they really are, that this choice is pre-determined by upbringing and education, by the respective environment and the stereotypes of everyday life the persons are accustomed to, the origin of which we may find nowhere else but in the interests of the economic system. Any specific sexual attribute, from the biologic constitution up to the perception-structures of everybody, is entirely conditioned by the sexualization of the partial drives [Partialtriebe] mentioned above, the activation of which is the result of the competition between the endeavours deriving from the economic system on the one hand and the suppressed impulses that are striving for genitality on the other hand.

It is quite clear that the relations of production as a totality are sedimented in the body and in the so-called psyche which is nothing more than a man-made artificial product. Consequently, any approach which claims to cope with the sexual misery is doomed to failure, if it abstracts from the totality of the ruling relations of production on the one hand and from their necessary abolition on the other hand. In the SPK it was our primary interest to regard any immediate sexual need as a such one which had to be understood as a need produced by capitalism, and that implies that it had to be worked out as such. And for that very reason attitudes such as: "Before engaging in political work, one must firstly overcome sexual difficulites", or viceversa, that "only after the abolition of the private ownership (private property) of the means of production would it be possible to achieve sexual emancipation", had to be replaced as they represented merely an abstract negation [abstrakte Negation]. Quite on the contrary we tried to look out for practical concrete possibilities for practicing sexual relations, always taking into account the immediate living conditions of the single person, constituting a determinate, real negation [bestimmte Negation].

The original negation of sexuality [die einfache Negation der Sexualitaet] is a accomplished fact, the sexual energies being splitted into partial drives caused by their having been born within the relations of production of the capitalist system (voyeurism, commodity fetishism, "perversions" and so on). The splitting of sexual energy into partial drives and their reversal into oral and anal functions and disfunctions is the materiel realization of the dominat rule of the exchange value, whereas genitality can be found only far back in history or in early childhood. Submitted to and repressed by the exchange value all so-called "inter-human" relationships are pre-determined and are nothing but relations between objects (= exchange of neuroticisms). To turn object-object-relations into subject-subject-relations is a task and a problem whose solution is possible only if there is a political practice capable to do the negation and abolition of all exchange values; CLASS-WARFARE! (41).

The process of emancipating sexuality can be outlined as follows in a somewhat schematic way:

  1. There is to start out from the negation of sexuality as a function of life and also the premise that there exists a dominating control tied to the partial drives (commodity fetishism). The surrounding objects sexualized by the partial drives also instill anxiety. From this follows the need to free the partial drives from their frightening contents in imaginary representation. In this first stage every kind of activity and practising sexuality has to be supported and encouraged (for example: masturbation is in no way harmful, but there can result a danger when masturbation is accompanied by self-destructive, namely masochistic and sadistic contents of imaginary representation).

  2. Negation of the partial drives through their subordination to the genital function [Genitalfunktion]. The transition from 1) to 2) presupposes a sexual relationship and that the sexual partners are willing to cooperate with each other. Once the anxieties and inhibitions have disappeared, attitudes of sexual promiscuity may occur temporarily, but they disappear as soon as the need for cooperation with those ingroup members is recognized, who had been the first choice practising sexuality.

  3. Because sexuality is still split off the life-function in its totality, now it has to be integrated into the being a subject which consists of the political identity. However, we have to keep well in mind that even if we succeed in organizing sexuality in a genital way, be it only as a beginning, and if we also succeed in overcoming the partial drives best we can, its practice remains something detached and particular, as long as the alienated life context in its totality, to which the single persons are subject, continues to exist (workplace, family, school, university in their capitalist organizational form), these conditions permanently and perpetually remaining to work against us. But there also is the possibility to achieve real happiness in sexuality now as an experienced one, able to mobilize precisely those energies (strength from illness) which we need to stand up against the destructive and life-hostile system in order to create the premises we need to regain our bodily life in the context where sexuality represents the one focus from which starts as well community, but also its failure and destruction.

The question of whether there is a solution for the sexual misery or not is directed to practical conduct and far away from being a subject to any thesis or theory, that means, this question is not a theroretical one, but a practical one. (42)