A question on mental health.

[Schumpeter]

How would your post revolutionary society deal with conditions such as ASPD (Psychopathy) in which individuals almost entirely lack empathy, have a tendency towards parasitic behaviour and are very goal driven/manipulative. Currently it is thought that CEOs are four times as likely to have this condition within the capitalist system, these people would almost definitely attempt to climb to the upper echelons of a post revolutionary society (however you would define that to be depending on your tendency), the effects of this can lead to the hijacking of the revolutionary movement, some would argue that Stalin is a perfect example of this, with the results being disastrous of course. So how would people with ASPD be dealt with?

[liberlict]

Mental illness is a product of capitalism.

[Schumpeter]

Mental illness is a product of capitalism.

:laugh:

[consuming negativity]

How would your post revolutionary society deal with conditions such as ASPD (Psychopathy) in which individuals almost entirely lack empathy, have a tendency towards parasitic behaviour and are very goal driven/manipulative. Currently it is thought that CEOs are four times as likely to have this condition within the capitalist system, these people would almost definitely attempt to climb to the upper echelons of a post revolutionary society (however you would define that to be depending on your tendency), the effects of this can lead to the hijacking of the revolutionary movement, some would argue that Stalin is a perfect example of this, with the results being disastrous of course. So how would people with ASPD be dealt with?

On a situational basis basis, like any other human. They lack empathy, but they aren't all Patrick Bateman. Most of them are able to understand and act according to the norms of society, although their reasoning is most often self-preservation. And, again, most of them are indistinguishable from the rest of us in appearance, although you're right that they are over-represented among the capitalist class.

I wouldn't say they're necessarily any more likely than a normal person to "hijack a revolution" as you put it. But if they were to try, they could be dealt with like anyone else with that goal. Although, it would actually be in the interests of many sociopaths to support a revolution; sociopaths work, participate in society, and have material interests like the rest of us.

[Diirez]

Mental illness is a product of capitalism.
You're joking, right?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

How would your post revolutionary society deal with conditions such as ASPD (Psychopathy) in which individuals almost entirely lack empathy, have a tendency towards parasitic behaviour and are very goal driven/manipulative. Currently it is thought that CEOs are four times as likely to have this condition within the capitalist system, these people would almost definitely attempt to climb to the upper echelons of a post revolutionary society (however you would define that to be depending on your tendency), the effects of this can lead to the hijacking of the revolutionary movement, some would argue that Stalin is a perfect example of this, with the results being disastrous of course. So how would people with ASPD be dealt with?

I have heard the supposed fact about the incidence of sociopathy among CEOs before, but I haven't seen any serious studies that would back it up. It all sounds too cute - CEOs are bad people, so we should aim to make good people CEOs and forget the structural faults of capitalism.

I don't see why a communist society would have to "deal" with sociopaths in any manner. The government over men would have been abolished, replaced by the administration of things, so if anyone wants to manipulate forklifts in a cynical, self-serving manner, they can knock themselves out. In the transitional period, a lack of empathy might even be a perk - certainly the transitional dictatorship will have to do things that are deeply unpleasant.

There is room enough for neurodiversity.

As for Stalin, I highly doubt that he was a sociopath. Most accounts of his life describe someone who was no stranger to extremes of emotional behavior, and whose bluntness often resulted in strained relations with people around him. If we're playing silly games like "guess the sociopath", my guess would be the cold, formal, extremely goal-driven Sverdlov - an impeccable revolutionary.

[Schumpeter]

I have heard the supposed fact about the incidence of sociopathy among CEOs before, but I haven't seen any serious studies that would back it up. It all sounds too cute - CEOs are bad people, so we should aim to make good people CEOs and forget the structural faults of capitalism.

I don't see why a communist society would have to "deal" with sociopaths in any manner. The government over men would have been abolished, replaced by the administration of things, so if anyone wants to manipulate forklifts in a cynical, self-serving manner, they can knock themselves out. In the transitional period, a lack of empathy might even be a perk - certainly the transitional dictatorship will have to do things that are deeply unpleasant.

There is room enough for neurodiversity.

As for Stalin, I highly doubt that he was a sociopath. Most accounts of his life describe someone who was no stranger to extremes of emotional behavior, and whose bluntness often resulted in strained relations with people around him. If we're playing silly games like "guess the sociopath", my guess would be the cold, formal, extremely goal-driven Sverdlov - an impeccable revolutionary.

There http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/

Those with ASPD have no conscience, they are not at all loyal to any movement, they are merely interested in self - advancement. This means that when say a communist society is established (theoretically speaking) it would always be vulnerable to those who would seek to take advantage and leech of the society, those who would wish to establish control and power over others, without a sufficient power base to clamp down on counter revolutionary activity, this will inevitably happen. Then if you do establish a power base to do so, you merely attract sociopaths to your power base, with which they will not use to the good of the commune voluntary, which implies another power structure.

So quickly we begin to see that the sorts of people who rise to the top of the capitalist system would do so in any other system that is implemented, aside from those born with a massive inherent advantage (there are lots of poor socio paths too)

Stalin was definitely not mentally stable, perhaps Bi-polar?

[Schumpeter]

You're joking, right?

Its satire

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

There http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/

I haven't read the studies in question, but off the cuff the academic credentials of the authors are very much suspect - one is a journalist, one an "executive coach" (does he coach executives or is he simply a coach who is also an executive?) and so on.

The point, of course, is that it doesn't matter if CEOs are all sociopaths or saints of the Catholic Church - and who knows which is worse? - the laws of motion of capitalism lead to certain outcomes no matter what the subjective preference of the business executives. Due to the falling rate of profit, for example, executives will strive to fire workers even if they personally sympathize with them. That is the line between socialists and liberals - liberals blame social ills on persons, socialists on social structures.


Those with ASPD have no conscience, they are not at all loyal to any movement, they are merely interested in self - advancement. This means that when say a communist society is established (theoretically speaking) it would always be vulnerable to those who would seek to take advantage and leech of the society, those who would wish to establish control and power over others, without a sufficient power base to clamp down on counter revolutionary activity, this will inevitably happen. Then if you do establish a power base to do so, you merely attract sociopaths to your power base, with which they will not use to the good of the commune voluntary, which implies another power structure.

Again, in the communist society there would be no possibility of establishing power over other people - the government over men will have been abolished. The public authorities would have a purely technical, administrative nature.

In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the self-interest of any official would be best served by close adherence to the line of the party. So, again, I don't see a problem - if anything, sociopaths would probably make for fearsome, but effective administrators.


Stalin was definitely not mentally stable, perhaps Bi-polar?

Why do you think he was unstable? From what I know, he was perfectly stable, if extremely proud and bloody-minded. Overall, it's lazy thinking to ascribe mistakes in policy to the mental instability or individual ambition of one man.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have heard the supposed fact about the incidence of sociopathy among CEOs before, but I haven't seen any serious studies that would back it up. It all sounds too cute - CEOs are bad people, so we should aim to make good people CEOs and forget the structural faults of capitalism.

That's not the impression I get at all. Rather instead it seems to me that the structural nature of capitalism encourages those with sociopathic tendencies to flourish in positions of power.

In other words, "making good people CEOs" won't work because the job inherently selects for sociopathy and we'll simply end up back at square one again.


I don't see why a communist society would have to "deal" with sociopaths in any manner. The government over men would have been abolished, replaced by the administration of things, so if anyone wants to manipulate forklifts in a cynical, self-serving manner, they can knock themselves out. In the transitional period, a lack of empathy might even be a perk - certainly the transitional dictatorship will have to do things that are deeply unpleasant.

There is room enough for neurodiversity.

Actually, my sense of empathy demands that if we must off certain people, it should be done with a minimum of fuss and trauma for all concerned. Sociopaths wouldn't actually give a shit about that and that's why I would never ever fucking trust them.

[liberlict]

Its satire

It is. But I did have a discussion with someone on this website a while back. It was in the context of policing; he claimed that there would be no need for police in socialism since nobody would commit crimes. I tried to explain to him that crime is not just an economic issue, and some people have mental illnesses like psychopathy that compel them to do anti-social things. His response to that was that these people merely aren't getting the right treatment, and that psychopathy is a curable disease. When I gave him evidence to the contrary he basically went into denial. :laugh:

[Marshal of the People]

I am a psychopath and I am perfectly fine.

I may not have any empathy, remorse, guilt, a conscience, feelings of love but I am not going to commit a crime if it harms me in any way. I often want to kill people all the time if they do something I don't like,
but I don't because:

1. I would get into trouble.
2. People wouldn't like me as much.

There are other reasons I just can't think of them at the moment.

I am no more dangerous than any of you (I could possibly be a bit dangerous if I had a lot of power, but I don't have any real power at the moment) so there is nothing to worry about since we are humans too.:grin:

EDIT: I have never and probably won't ever kill a human, it is just movies and television which makes us seem evil when most of us aren't.

[Marshal of the People]

Actually, my sense of empathy demands that if we must off certain people, it should be done with a minimum of fuss and trauma for all concerned. Sociopaths wouldn't actually give a shit about that and that's why I would never ever fucking trust them.

Explain
if we must off certain people, it should be done with a minimum of fuss and trauma for all concerned please.

Well you could use guillotines, they are quick and (as far as we can tell) relatively painless. You could also just bomb them with high explosives (quick and painless death, shoot them in the head (also relatively quick and painless if you don't miss or you are just unlucky), there are many other quick and painless ways of killing but I shan’t have time to list them all.

Killing is not nice at all (and I don't really like it usually) but I don't understand "minimum of fuss and trauma" I am sure it would not be nice for the NT people carrying out the execution.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

the effects of this can lead to the hijacking of the revolutionary movement, some would argue that Stalin is a perfect example of this, with the results being disastrous of course. So how would people with ASPD be dealt with?
The extreme centralization and concentration of power in the USSR made it prone to such a problem. Communism would see power decentralized and suffused throughout society with an administration of things, making it far less prone to such manipulation. IMO.

[liberlict]

I am a psychopath and I am perfectly fine.

I may not have any empathy, remorse, guilt, a conscience, feelings of love but I am not going to commit a crime if it harms me in any way. I often want to kill people all the time if they do something I don't like,
but I don't because:

1. I would get into trouble.
2. People wouldn't like me as much.

There are other reasons I just can't think of them at the moment.

I am no more dangerous than any of you (I could possibly be a bit dangerous if I had a lot of power, but I don't have any real power at the moment) so there is nothing to worry about since we are humans too.:grin:

EDIT: I have never and probably won't ever kill a human, it is just movies and television which makes us seem evil when most of us aren't.

Psychopaths are never actually self-conscious of being psychopaths. You're probably just a crime groupie.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am a psychopath and I am perfectly fine.

Have you been diagnosed, or is that just your opinion as a layman?


Explain please.

You say:


I may not have any empathy, remorse, guilt, a conscience, feelings of love but I am not going to commit a crime if it harms me in any way. I often want to kill people all the time if they do something I don't like,
but I don't because:

1. I would get into trouble.
2. People wouldn't like me as much.

Those are entirely selfish reasons which suggest you'd be perfectly fine with killing people for your own advantage so long as it wouldn't get you into trouble or earn the disapproval of others. Which is in some ways even worse than those psychopaths who don't even care that much, because the implication is that you would be willing hurt those who are the most vulnerable on account of having nobody "important" who would know or care about their fate.


Well you could use guillotines, they are quick and (as far as we can tell) relatively painless. You could also just bomb them with high explosives (quick and painless death, shoot them in the head (also relatively quick and painless if you don't miss or you are just unlucky), there are many other quick and painless ways of killing but I shan’t have time to list them all.

Killing is not nice at all (and I don't really like it usually) but I don't understand "minimum of fuss and trauma" I am sure it would not be nice for the NT people carrying out the execution.

A "minimum of fuss and trauma" doesn't mean "nice". It means proper justice on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and not show trials. For killing in self-defense to be done as swiftly and painlessly as the circumstances allow. In general, for lethal violence to be the absolute last resort and even then I think it should be considered a kind of failure.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's not the impression I get at all. Rather instead it seems to me that the structural nature of capitalism encourages those with sociopathic tendencies to flourish in positions of power.

In other words, "making good people CEOs" won't work because the job inherently selects for sociopathy and we'll simply end up back at square one again.[/QUOTE]

But this still assumes that capitalist enterprises act like they do because of the personal faults of their executives, and not the nature of the capitalist system.

Here is a thought experiment: let us suppose that doctors could easily ascertain if someone is a sociopath or not. Laws are passed forbidding sociopaths from becoming CEOs, generals, ministers, etc.

Would anything change? It wouldn't, which is why this focus on sociopaths is besides the point.


Actually, my sense of empathy demands that if we must off certain people, it should be done with a minimum of fuss and trauma for all concerned. Sociopaths wouldn't actually give a shit about that and that's why I would never ever fucking trust them.

The problem I have with this is that it encourages the mistaken belief that it's possible to kill someone nicely. It isn't. Any sort of non-consensual killing is going to be butchery, and the sooner we recognize that, the better.


You could also just bomb them with high explosives (quick and painless death[)]

Only if you happen to be standing in the immediate area of the bomb or HE munition impact. If you fire into a group, most people will not be in that area, and are going to die fairly agonizing deaths from shrapnel, burns, and other niceties.


shoot them in the head (also relatively quick and painless if you don't miss or you are just unlucky)

Actually, anything less than an autocannon shell or a very high-caliber bullet will likely cause the victim to bleed to death, sometimes while they're conscious.

I think many people equivocate between a relatively "clean" or "pretty" death and a painless death. Getting sliced certainly looks worse than a tank getting hit with a HEAT round, but I would rather get my head sliced off than roast to death. But in a revolutionary situation, we won't be able to choose. Modern warfare is hell - missiles, cannons, every weapon kills you in a way that is more horrible than the previous one. And the revolutionaries will have to use every one of these weapons, from the weapons some romantic might expect in a "straight-up fight" - tank main cannons, machine guns etc. - to things like cluster munitions and chemical warfare.


A "minimum of fuss and trauma" doesn't mean "nice". It means proper justice on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and not show trials. For killing in self-defense to be done as swiftly and painlessly as the circumstances allow. In general, for lethal violence to be the absolute last resort and even then I think it should be considered a kind of failure.

How on Earth do you propose that the revolutionary militia organize "proper justice"? We'll be lucky if we can organize anything above "shoot anyone suspicious". And yes, innocent people will get killed. They always are. The sooner we recognize that, the better. We need to sober up and stop dreaming about a flawless revolution.

[NGNM85]

The problem with Stalin wasn't simply that he was a sociopath, but that he was a sociopath at the top of a monolithic, bureaucratic state. That's one of the major deficits of autocracy, if you get a lousy dictator, and most of them have been, there's really nothing you can do about it.

[Marshal of the People]

Have you been diagnosed, or is that just your opinion as a layman?I have been diagnosed (along with a few other things).
Plus both my grandparents (on one side of my family) seem to at least have psychopathic tendencies.

[Marshal of the People]

Psychopaths are never actually self-conscious of being psychopaths. You're probably just a crime groupie.
What on earth is a "crime groupie"?

I would probably never commit a crime because it is illogical and could possibly get me into a lot of trouble.

[Marshal of the People]

I don't think anyone will try to undermine a system (in this case communism) if they are able to benefit from it. The vast majority of psychopaths and sociopaths will benefit from the system so they will have no need to try to bring it down and if they do it would be bad for them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But this still assumes that capitalist enterprises act like they do because of the personal faults of their executives, and not the nature of the capitalist system.

Not at all. I am saying that it is the nature of capitalism that is at fault for encouraging the worst excesses of those with ethical and empathic deficits - among other things that are just as salient.


Here is a thought experiment: let us suppose that doctors could easily ascertain if someone is a sociopath or not. Laws are passed forbidding sociopaths from becoming CEOs, generals, ministers, etc.

Would anything change? It wouldn't, which is why this focus on sociopaths is besides the point.

Things would change, but it would still be capitalism and therefore would still be a problem from a communist perspective. Since contrary to your thought experiment I don't think that there will be any meaningful efforts to remove the sociopathic from positions of political power and economic influence, that's one more problem that capitalism cannot solve.


The problem I have with this is that it encourages the mistaken belief that it's possible to kill someone nicely. It isn't. Any sort of non-consensual killing is going to be butchery, and the sooner we recognize that, the better.

Do you really think there is no difference between an execution by firing squad and torturing someone to death over the course of weeks? Not all acts of killing are equal, even if none of them are nice.


Modern warfare is hell - missiles, cannons, every weapon kills you in a way that is more horrible than the previous one. And the revolutionaries will have to use every one of these weapons, from the weapons some romantic might expect in a "straight-up fight" - tank main cannons, machine guns etc. - to things like cluster munitions and chemical warfare.

I don't see any justification whatsoever for revolutionaries to use chemical munitions.


How on Earth do you propose that the revolutionary militia organize "proper justice"? We'll be lucky if we can organize anything above "shoot anyone suspicious". And yes, innocent people will get killed. They always are. The sooner we recognize that, the better. We need to sober up and stop dreaming about a flawless revolution.

Gathering evidence and presenting it in a consistently structured and recorded manner is not beyond the abilities of revolutionaries. What other precautions and safeguards against hurting the innocent do you think we should just toss aside on the spurious notion that revolutionaries are little more than bloodthirsty idiots driven by a mindless rage?

It doesn't have to "flawless", that is a distortion on your part. Mistakes are going to be made, but if we are to have any serious claim to be building a better world, then we'd better be making damn sure that as few mistakes are made as possible.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Mental illness is a product of capitalism.

:rolleyes:

How about no. The concept of tabula rasa is still a controversial subject in which there have been no conclusive, authoritative study which has validated the theory. With this being said external factors can contribute to the overall development of an individual's psychologically. To what degree nature or nurture play both in psychology in general and particularly psychopathological cases in terms of being objective, clear cut causation, remains to be seen. I do believe that capitalism has an enormous impact on the individual however to say capitalism is the sole, root and only cause of mental health issues seems inaccurate.

How would mental health issues be treated in a post-revolutionary society? Hard to say considering the field of study and treatment is constantly changing (as it should). So, I would assume it would be reminiscent to how it is handled today though probably in a more humane and revamped way adhering to our understanding of psychopathology/psychology at that time. It's a very complicated issue somewhat.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I swear the "quote" function refuses to work on ÑóẊîöʼn's posts. Personally, I blame the dieresis.


The problem with Stalin wasn't simply that he was a sociopath, but that he was a sociopath at the top of a monolithic, bureaucratic state. That's one of the major deficits of autocracy, if you get a lousy dictator, and most of them have been, there's really nothing you can do about it.

You must be one hell of an amateur psychiatrist to diagnose long-dead people with such certainty.


Not at all. I am saying that it is the nature of capitalism that is at fault for encouraging the worst excesses of those with ethical and empathic deficits - among other things that are just as salient.

Oh, and what is an "ethical deficit"? The point I am trying to get across is that an executive doesn't need to have an "empathic deficit" in order to screw people over, just as a soldier can be a perfectly well-adjusted and caring person at home and gun down Arab or Vietnamese civilians on assignment.


Do you really think there is no difference between an execution by firing squad and torturing someone to death over the course of weeks? Not all acts of killing are equal, even if none of them are nice.

That is irrelevant. Any realistic method of killing will be approximately equally horrible. There is no need for torturing someone to death over weeks. In fact, in a revolutionary situation, that is a fucking luxury.


I don't see any justification whatsoever for revolutionaries to use chemical munitions.

For one thing, chemical weapons are great for clearing out forests, tunnels etc. During the peasant insurgency in Tambov, the Bolshevik authorities used poisonous gas to clear out insurgents hiding in the forests around the guberniya. Apparently it was quite effective.


Gathering evidence and presenting it in a consistently structured and recorded manner is not beyond the abilities of revolutionaries. What other precautions and safeguards against hurting the innocent do you think we should just toss aside on the spurious notion that revolutionaries are little more than bloodthirsty idiots driven by a mindless rage?

I never said that. The problem is not that revolutionaries are bloodthirsty but that they must act quickly. A revolution, followed by civil war and imperialist intervention, is the last place to take the time to gather evidence etc. etc.


It doesn't have to "flawless", that is a distortion on your part. Mistakes are going to be made, but if we are to have any serious claim to be building a better world, then we'd better be making damn sure that as few mistakes are made as possible.
[/QUOTE]

We'd better make sure to win - not least because the failure of the revolution would result in a greater bloodbath than the most bloody revolutionary dictatorship.

[tallguy]

Mental illness is a product of capitalism.sorry, but that is at least partially wrong. With regards to psychopathy, this exists in a small percentage of the population. Similarly for psychotic/bipolar disorders. As for neurotic disorders, there is certainly considerable room to argue that capitalism massively exacerbates and promotes such disorders and, even ,that it has a somewhat exacerbative effect on the other two, but less prominently. Aside from the underlying genetics, these first two disorders are otherwise a function of industrial society per-se. Capitalism is just a particularly alienating example of it. But, all industrial societies are alienating by their very nature to a greater or lesser extent.

One other point about psychopathy; whilst capitalism does not cause it, it certainly rewards it and this is a problem enough in itself.

In short:

Bad - largely genetic, but exacerbated via strong reward structures in capitalist society.

Mad - largely genetic, but probably exacerbated by the alienation of industrial society

Sad - the human condition, massively exacerbated by the alienation of industrial society per-se and by capitalist society in particular.

[tallguy]

...The concept of tabula rasa is still a controversial subject in which there have been no conclusive, authoritative study which has validated the theory....The concept of "tabula Rasa" is not a controversial subject at all.

It's wrong and the evidence that it is wrong is both voluminous and overwhelming and has been so for decades.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The concept of "tabula Rasa" is not a controversial subject at all.

Mhmmm, ok, not according to any and every psychologist/psychiatrist I've spoken too, psychology (text)book I've read and so on. We'll see.


It's wrong and the evidence that it is wrong is both voluminous and overwhelming and has been so for decades.

Where are you getting this from? Sources?

[tallguy]

From a degree in the subject of psychology and a decade and a half in the field of education.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

From a degree in the subject of psychology and a decade and a half in the field of education.

Fantastic! Then you should be more than able to provide me with the requested info. :)

[tallguy]

Well, firstly, there is the massive field of behaviour genetics showing considerable heritability of certain behavioural traits in both human and non-human animals. I don't intend to dig my textbooks out and start citing individual studies, But here is a link to an easy introduction to the field if you are interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

On a more general point of order, regarding the above, to assert that human cognition is entirely tabula rasa is to deny the action of genetics on the formation of human brains. Which, frankly is an absurd thing to do, unless one were to believe that human cognition is somehow metaphysically independent from the rest of human physiology. This is no less true of human psychopathology than it is for any other aspect of human cognition.

All of the above is anecdotally backed, in my case, by 15 years of teaching which has forced me to [reluctantly] accept that, whilst many of the disparities between children's performance in academic subjects may be quite rightly accounted for by disparities in their environmental influences, those environmental disparities simply cannot fully account for those difference in performance.

[liberlict]

What on earth is a "crime groupie"?

I would probably never commit a crime because it is illogical and could possibly get me into a lot of trouble.

How did you get diagnosed? A person never actually gets into a position to be diagnosed as a psychopath unless they have displayed some seriously anti-social behavior, like torturing animals or murdering people. That's why there's so many psychopaths walking around out there undiagnosed.

Yes it's true that the majority of psychopaths never commit a crime, or at least don't get caught, but it's extremely unlikely that one would ever accept the diagnosis in the clinical way you seem to have.

A psychopath's first and dominating instinct is always to manipulate. They would never say such a thing such as "I would never commit a crime because and it's illogical could possibly get me into a lot of trouble".

[tallguy]

How did you get diagnosed? A person never actually gets into a position to be diagnosed as a psychopath unless they have displayed some seriously anti-social behavior, like torturing animals or murdering people. That's why there's so many psychopaths walking around out there undiagnosed.

Yes it's true that the majority of psychopaths never commit a crime, or at least don't get caught, but it's extremely unlikely that one would ever except the diagnosis in the clinical way how seem to have.

A psychopath's first and dominating instinct is always to manipulate. They would never say such a thing such as "I would never commit a crime because it's illogical could possibly get me into a lot of trouble".Quite

They also would also, I would wager, be highly unlikely to frequent a forum since there is little to be materially gained in such activity

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I swear the "quote" function refuses to work on ÑóẊîöʼn's posts. Personally, I blame the dieresis.

Oh, and what is an "ethical deficit"? The point I am trying to get across is that an executive doesn't need to have an "empathic deficit" in order to screw people over, just as a soldier can be a perfectly well-adjusted and caring person at home and gun down Arab or Vietnamese civilians on assignment.

My point is that capitalism is unwilling or unable to make any meaningful effort to ameliorate the negative consequences of its structural functioning, whether that means providing an environment in which plain old-fashioned assholes go above the call of duty to fuck with people for whatever reason, or allowing outright psychopths to be part of their team.

It matters because it's all part and parcel of the dysfunction of capitalism.


That is irrelevant. Any realistic method of killing will be approximately equally horrible. There is no need for torturing someone to death over weeks. In fact, in a revolutionary situation, that is a fucking luxury.

It's not irrelevant just because you say so. And frankly I think the "luxury" argument is bogus because a revolutionary situation would likely involve hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, not all of whom are going to be suitable for front-line combat. That's plenty of hands available for multitasking, whether it's evidence-gathering for trials or a spot of extra-curricular torture being arbitrarily meted out by sadists taking advantage of the chaos. The latter sort of thing should be clamped down upon hard.


For one thing, chemical weapons are great for clearing out forests, tunnels etc. During the peasant insurgency in Tambov, the Bolshevik authorities used poisonous gas to clear out insurgents hiding in the forests around the guberniya. Apparently it was quite effective.

"Effective" is not the same thing as "the right thing to do". Sometimes doing what's right ain't easy.


I never said that. The problem is not that revolutionaries are bloodthirsty but that they must act quickly. A revolution, followed by civil war and imperialist intervention, is the last place to take the time to gather evidence etc. etc.

Bullshit. This is exactly the kind of "ticking time bomb" reasoning that is used to justify torturing suspects, and it's fucking nonsense through and through. Not to mention that it implies that revolutionaries can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That might be the case for particularly thick individuals, but here we're talking about large amounts of people with varying skillsets to bring to the table.


We'd better make sure to win - not least because the failure of the revolution would result in a greater bloodbath than the most bloody revolutionary dictatorship.

You say this as if giving a damn about who gets hurt is incompatible with winning, but I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune when it's your arse that's at risk of being fried because someone else has hijacked "swift revolutionary justice" in order to settle a personal score with you.

Has it occurred to you that if too many of the wrong people get whacked, then people might start to reconsider this whole "revolution" thing, or at least the versions of it which include acting just as badly as the bastards they're trying to overthrow?

[argeiphontes]

They [psychopaths] also would also, I would wager, be highly unlikely to frequent a forum since there is little to be materially gained in such activity

I would question why they would be involved in a social movement at all, since there are easier ways to achieve gain than holding out for the miniscule chance of worldwide revolution. Or even agitating for reforms or whatever.

[liberlict]

I would question why they would be involved in a social movement at all, since there are easier ways to achieve gain than holding out for the miniscule chance of worldwide revolution. Or even agitating for reforms or whatever.

There's a tendency for anti-social, amoral psychos to get into and dominate political movements, Hitler and Stalin are the obvious examples, but for them it's always about what the cause can do for them, not what they can do for the cause. They are quite good at hijacking political movements because of their natural gifts for manipulating people.

[liberlict]

Well, firstly, there is the massive field of behaviour genetics showing considerable heritability of certain behavioural traits in both human and non-human animals. I don't intend to dig my textbooks out and start citing individual studies, But here is a link to an easy introduction to the field if you are interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

On a more general point of order, regarding the above, to assert that human cognition is entirely tabula rasa is to deny the action of genetics on the formation of human brains. Which, frankly is an absurd thing to do, unless one were to believe that human cognition is somehow metaphysically independent from the rest of human physiology. This is no less true of human psychopathology than it is for any other aspect of human cognition.

All of the above is anecdotally backed, in my case, by 15 years of teaching which has forced me to [reluctantly] accept that, whilst many of the disparities between children's performance in academic subjects may be quite rightly accounted for by disparities in their environmental influences, those environmental disparities simply cannot fully account for those difference in performance.

Since many people on the radical left bthink that anyone who believes in nativism, or 'essentialism', has been brainwashed by the bourgeoisie academe, it might be worth noting that Chomsky's grammar theories demolish Tabula rasa as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

My point is that capitalism is unwilling or unable to make any meaningful effort to ameliorate the negative consequences of its structural functioning, whether that means providing an environment in which plain old-fashioned assholes go above the call of duty to fuck with people for whatever reason, or allowing outright psychopths to be part of their team.

But I mean, this still sounds like the problem is in these people being psychopaths or "assholes" - i.e. that part of the problem is personal - and that capitalism merely provides them with an opportunity to act like a dick. But in fact capitalism requires that people act like dicks, or be ejected from the market. Hence even stable, well-adjusted, amiable people, pillars of community, saints of the Church, all of them are forced to act like dicks.

Do you think that the generals of bourgeois armies, for example, are all psychopaths or "assholes"? That is not the impression I get - Petraeus, for example, who presided over the murderous imperialist war in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to have been stable, well-adjusted, amiable, etc. etc. Yet the man is a war criminal, responsible for the deaths of countless brown people. If we blame this on Petraeus being a dick, Marxist analysis loses its sting. We have to show how it is possible for Petraeus to be an "upstanding citizen" and a war criminal - how, in fact, how the USCENTCOM chief never the opportunity to not be a war criminal.


It's not irrelevant just because you say so. And frankly I think the "luxury" argument is bogus because a revolutionary situation would likely involve hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, not all of whom are going to be suitable for front-line combat. That's plenty of hands available for multitasking, whether it's evidence-gathering for trials or a spot of extra-curricular torture being arbitrarily meted out by sadists taking advantage of the chaos. The latter sort of thing should be clamped down upon hard.

The tasks of the revolutionary party during the period of revolution and revolutionary civil war aren't restricted to front-line combat. Party and state authorities have to attend to logistics, communication with the front, rounding up reactionaries, seizing hostages, monitoring suspicious persons, carrying out counterespionage, organizing prisons and detention camps, reviewing the cases of existing prisoners, organizing production for war, seizing food supplies, etc. etc. To think that someone acting under orders from the party would have the time to torture suspects for weeks is a fantasy that belongs in an Octave Mirebeau novel, not serious discussion.


"Effective" is not the same thing as "the right thing to do". Sometimes doing what's right ain't easy.

Well, that is where we differ. I don't think that any sort of "objective" morality above the class struggle is defensible from a Marxist position. Clearing peasant bandits from the forests with poisonous gas served the interest of the proletariat, therefore it was the right thing for a communist to do.


Bullshit. This is exactly the kind of "ticking time bomb" reasoning that is used to justify torturing suspects, and it's fucking nonsense through and through. Not to mention that it implies that revolutionaries can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That might be the case for particularly thick individuals, but here we're talking about large amounts of people with varying skillsets to bring to the table.

I think the tasks of the revolutionary party are a bit more complex than walking, chewing gum, or both at the same time. And the reason the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't work is that torture is unreliable as a method of extracting information.

Security personnel can't conduct an investigation, particularly not one that would pass in a bourgeois court, of a person that is already known or strongly suspected to be guilty, and carry out the other vital tasks that the revolution forces on them - what you propose is that forces be diverted from these vital tasks to preserving the illusion of bourgeois legality.


You say this as if giving a damn about who gets hurt is incompatible with winning, but I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune when it's your arse that's at risk of being fried because someone else has hijacked "swift revolutionary justice" in order to settle a personal score with you.

I am aware that, if I participate in the revolution - and unlike many who place socialism on the ever-receding horizon, I would like to participate in one - I run the risk of being killed. But I run the same risk today.

John Reed was nearly shot as a spy in Russia; nonetheless he supported the Bolsheviks until his very natural death.


Has it occurred to you that if too many of the wrong people get whacked, then people might start to reconsider this whole "revolution" thing, or at least the versions of it which include acting just as badly as the bastards they're trying to overthrow?

Historically, that hasn't happened at all, not with the class we are concerned with. If the petite bourgeoisie is scared, well, they should be.

[argeiphontes]

[ deleted: "Quote" button not working so double-posted ]

[argeiphontes]

There's a tendency for anti-social, amoral psychos to get into and dominate political movements, Hitler and Stalin are the obvious examples, but for them it's always about what the cause can do for them, not what they can do for the cause. They are quite good at hijacking political movements because of their natural gifts for manipulating people.

Here's (http://carljungdepthpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/02/diagnosing-dictators-cg-jung-1938.html) an interesting little article on Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin by Jung from 1938.



Stalin belongs in the same category [as Mussolini]. He is, however, not a creator. Lenin, created; Stalin is devouring the brood. He is a conquistador; he simply took what Lenin made and put his teeth into it and devoured it. He is not even creatively destructive. Lenin was that. He tore down the whole structure of feudal and bourgeois society in Russia and replaced - it wit is own creation. Stalin is destroying that. Mentally, Staliin is not so interesting as Mussolini, who resembles him in the fundamental pattern of his personality, and he is not anything like so interesting as the medicine man, the myth—Hitler. Anybody who takes command of one hundred and seventy million people as Stalin has done, is bound to be interesting, whether you like him or not. No, Stalin is just a brute—a shrewd peasant, an instinctive powerful, beast—no doubt in that way far the most powerful of all the dictators. He reminds one of a) Siberian saber-toothed tiger with that powerful neck, those sweeping mustaches, and that smile like a cat which has been eating cream. I should imagine that Genghis Khan might have been an early Stalin. I shouldn't wonder if he makes himself Czar.

....

There are millions of men who resisted their fathers just as strongly as, say, Mussolini or Hitler or Stalin, but who never became dictators or anything like dictators. The law to remember about dictators is: "It is the persecuted one who, persecutes."

....

But to go on with the circumstances under which dictators come to power: Stalin came when the death of Lenin, unique creator of Bolshevism, had left the party and the people leaderless and the country uncertain of its future. Thus the dictators are made from human material which suffers from overwhelming needs. The three dictators in Europe differ from one another tremendously, but it is not so much they who differ as it is their peoples.

....

Mussolini rules Italy to a certain extent, but for the rest he is an instrument of the Italian people. With Stalin it is different. His dominant characteristic is overwhelming personal ambition. He does not identify himself with Russia. He rules Russia like any Czar.

....

Stalin fought so much against the Czar's bloody oppression that he is now doing exactly the same as the Czar. In my opinion, there is no difference at all now between Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. But what about the fact reported by many, and observed by myself, that the standard of living in the Soviet Union has risen considerably and is still rising from the low point of the famine of 1933? Of course. Stalin can be a good administrator at the same time that he is a Czar. It would be a miracle if anybody could keep so naturally rich a country as Russia from being prosperous. But Stalin is not very original, and it is such bad taste for him to go about turning himself into a Czar so crudely, in front of everybody, without any concealment at all! It is really proletarian!

....

In my opinion the change came about in Stalin during the 1918 revolution. Up to that time he had labored, unselfishly perhaps, for the good of the Cause, and probably had never thought of personal power for himself, for the very good reason that there never appeared to be the shadow of a chance that he could even aspire to anything like personal power.

The question didn't exist for him. But during the revolution Stalin saw for the first time how you acquire power. I am sure he said to himself with astonishment, "But it is so easy!" He must have watched Lenin and the others reach the full rank of complete power, and have said to himself, "So that is how it is done! Well, I can go them one better. All you have to do is to do away with the fellow in front of you." He would certainly have done away with Lenin if Lenin had lived. Nothing could have stopped him, as nothing has stopped him now. Naturally, he wants his country to prosper. The more prosperous and greater his country is, the greater he is. But he cannot devote his full energies to promoting the welfare of his country so long as his personal drive for power is not satisfied.

....

He is surrounded by a pack of wolves. He must keep forever on the alert. I must say that I think we owe him a debt of gratitude! Why? For the wonderful example he has given the whole world of the axiomatic truth that Communism always leads to dictatorship.


Interestingly, he says the cure for Hitler will be to invade Russia and predicts that that will save Europe. It's an interesting read in its entirety.

(Carl Jung interview with H.R. Knickerbocker in Cosmopolitan [1938] See: C.G. Jung Speaks; Pages 115-135.)

[Red Economist]

How would your post revolutionary society deal with conditions such as ASPD (Psychopathy) in which individuals almost entirely lack empathy, have a tendency towards parasitic behaviour and are very goal driven/manipulative. Currently it is thought that CEOs are four times as likely to have this condition within the capitalist system, these people would almost definitely attempt to climb to the upper echelons of a post revolutionary society (however you would define that to be depending on your tendency), the effects of this can lead to the hijacking of the revolutionary movement, some would argue that Stalin is a perfect example of this, with the results being disastrous of course. So how would people with ASPD be dealt with?

This is a variation of the 'human nature' argument, though in a scientific guise. If we begin with the assumption that human nature is inherently evil, selfish, sinful etc, it makes a communist society 'impossible' or else extremely undesirable.

There has been a trend in arguing that psychopathic traits make people more successful because lack of empathy (supposedly) makes them more efficient at competition as there is no ethics that has got in the way.
At a guess, I'd suspect it would play hand in hand with a 'social Darwinist' "this is a genetic characteristic that gives X person a biological competitive advantage in our social environment" etc. .

My argument is 'theoretical' as I'm not that familiar with the literature, but this is how I would approach it.


the 'Stalin' example assumes that Stalin was the [I]cause of the degeneration of the soviet union into a totalitarian mess, that he led people to do really terrible things. As a Marxist, I would 'flip' this argument on it's head. You can't 'hijack' a revolutionary movement (and all history) because it is a 'bottom-up' phenomena; Other people had to accept being led by a 'psychopath'. So therefore the problem was not a single 'mentally ill' individual, but an 'insane' society. So I would say that your looking at a much wider social problem than simply an individual one. (Look up the Milgram experiment and Standford University Prison experiment) Why else would people enthusiastically participate in dictatorships ?



I would argue however that psychopathy is the exception, not the rule, as social behavior is primarily economic (you have to have the means to fight the wars, dictatorships etc. in the first place) and the nature of man cannot be independent of his needs. Personally, I'd suspect that psychopathy isn't just a 'one off' in a population but represents a portion of each individuals psychology as the ability to 'black out' the loss or suffering of other people as it helps us 'concentrate' on what we can deal with. there was some research done in which psychopaths were shown to have an 'on-off' switch which would fit this view;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23431793



IF communism actually worked- it wouldn't be hierarchical but would be organized on a 'horizontal' basis so there would be no ladder to 'climb up'. This is really the [I]only defense socioeconomic against psychopathic rulers by not having rulers at all.



The classification of psychopathic behavior as psychopathic is not simply a 'scientific' characterization but a moral one. 'criminal' activity against the state and society is psychopathy, but when it is for the state, such as in wars, dictatorships and genocide; it's 'normal' behavior. If you want an absolute moral exclusion on psychopathic behavior- you can't have it both ways.



It is important to note that because categories of mental illness represent 'moral' categories of behavior, this means that our perception of what mental illness is highly prejudicial. It is possible to argue that the fear or stigma of people with mental illness is in fact projection by the person viewing them due to their own repressed sadistic drives which are widely utilized by dictatorial AND revolutionary movements through out history when the frame of reference for morality has shifted to these actions becoming acceptable. So, I'm slow to judge on this one.

To some extent revolutionaries would have to accept actions that would be considered psychopathic to do 'what is necessary' for the revolution and accept the 'necessity' of class conflict and revolutionary violence- even to a small degree. A consistent pattern of pacifist behavior ignores the fact that other peoples action are objective to the will of the individual, and that social conflict exists independently of a person principles and emotions.

IF psychopathy has an environmental cause it is theoretically possible communism could eliminate it by adjusting the environment. IF it originates from a capitalist environment- it would most likely continue to persist through a revolutionary period UNLESS it became a central theoretical issue for the very issues it raises. This may of course be an issue that a revolution cannot solve and it will continue to be an issue that will persist in a post-revolutionary society; it's a scientific problem of understanding the disorder before you can get to a 'political' solution.

the idea that you can use the state to 'solve' mental illness is clearly in the realm of totalitarianism, so that throws up a hole load of other issues as to whether a post-revolutionary society is dictatorial and to what extent.

Psychopathy is still very poorly understood (as are mental illnesses in general). I'd think this would be especially true from a environmental point of view given that psychologists operate on the ideological assumption that mental illness is a disease of the mind, rather than having environmental causes.

[tallguy]

....Psychopathy is still very poorly understood (as are mental illnesses in general). I'd think this would be especially true from a environmental point of view given that psychologists operate on the ideological assumption that mental illness is a disease of the mind, rather than having environmental causes.Some psychologists operate on the assumption that psychopathology is purely a disease of the mind and has nothing to do with environmental influences. Most do not because to do so is just plain silly. Though, I agree, that many do not account for wider socio-economic influences enough. Also, it very much depends on the particular form of psychopathology under discussion. With psychopathy, for example, this has an extremely high degree of heritability in terms of the underlying cognition. However, how that cognition expresses itself behaviourally can be significantly influenced by the environment.

[Red Economist]

Some psychologists operate on the assumption that psychopathology is purely a disease of the mind and has nothing to do with environmental influences. Most do not because to do so is just plain silly. Though, I agree, that many do not account for wider socio-economic influences enough. Also, it very much depends on the particular form of psychopathology under discussion. With psychopathy, for example, this has an extremely high degree of heritability in terms of the underlying cognition. However, how that cognition expresses itself behaviourally can be significantly influenced by the environment.

I don't know about psychopathy in any detail, but have a rough understanding of mental illness from personal experience (depression, anxiety etc).
On the nature-nurture debate, establishing 'truths' in psychology is so close to philosophy that claiming 'scientific' status for a classification of mental behavior poses serious problems of interpretation. I think it was R.D.Lang who did a blind study of psychologists diagnosing mental illness and found that they couldn't tell the difference between the people who were pretending to be ill and the people who were actually ill.

Marxism has a very strong 'nurture' bias because of it's politics (as in arguing for social equality, inequality 'must' be a product of environmental influences if the case is to be made at all). I've never come across a Marxist who thought the mind was a 'blank slate', but I'm sure someone probably tried to indoctrinate people on this basis at some time in the history of communism. I'd have to read up on Soviet psychology to be sure.
Their is room for a 'dialectic' of nature-nurture, but again- this interpretation will be almost totally marginalized from mainstream psychology and wouldn't hold any standing amongst the current scientific community as it is an overwhelmingly ideological/political argument and interpretation of the problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But I mean, this still sounds like the problem is in these people being psychopaths or "assholes" - i.e. that part of the problem is personal - and that capitalism merely provides them with an opportunity to act like a dick. But in fact capitalism requires that people act like dicks, or be ejected from the market. Hence even stable, well-adjusted, amiable people, pillars of community, saints of the Church, all of them are forced to act like dicks.

Do you think that the generals of bourgeois armies, for example, are all psychopaths or "assholes"? That is not the impression I get - Petraeus, for example, who presided over the murderous imperialist war in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to have been stable, well-adjusted, amiable, etc. etc. Yet the man is a war criminal, responsible for the deaths of countless brown people. If we blame this on Petraeus being a dick, Marxist analysis loses its sting. We have to show how it is possible for Petraeus to be an "upstanding citizen" and a war criminal - how, in fact, how the USCENTCOM chief never the opportunity to not be a war criminal.

Sociopathy and asshole-ishness are on top of whatever the function of the job entails.


The tasks of the revolutionary party during the period of revolution and revolutionary civil war aren't restricted to front-line combat. Party and state authorities have to attend to logistics, communication with the front, rounding up reactionaries, seizing hostages, monitoring suspicious persons, carrying out counterespionage, organizing prisons and detention camps, reviewing the cases of existing prisoners, organizing production for war, seizing food supplies, etc. etc. To think that someone acting under orders from the party would have the time to torture suspects for weeks is a fantasy that belongs in an Octave Mirebeau novel, not serious discussion.

I think it's a mistake to assume that there will be a single revolutionary organisation, especially if as is often stated at least on these forums, the revolution is expected to encompass the entire world. Also, the torture doesn't have to go on for weeks. That was an extreme example, torture is unacceptable full stop. Aside from the obvious negative effects on the victims, it also dehumanises the perpetrators as well.


Well, that is where we differ. I don't think that any sort of "objective" morality above the class struggle is defensible from a Marxist position. Clearing peasant bandits from the forests with poisonous gas served the interest of the proletariat, therefore it was the right thing for a communist to do.

Who said anything about objective morality apart from you? My objection to the use of chemical weapons comes from my subjective feelings of disgust that are engendered by studying their effects on people and the environment, not from some academic notion of "objective morality".


I think the tasks of the revolutionary party are a bit more complex than walking, chewing gum, or both at the same time. And the reason the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't work is that torture is unreliable as a method of extracting information.

"Walking and chewing gum" is a figure of speech. It means that if there is a genuinely popular proletarian revolution, there will be plenty of manpower available for a variety of tasks.


Security personnel can't conduct an investigation, particularly not one that would pass in a bourgeois court, of a person that is already known or strongly suspected to be guilty, and carry out the other vital tasks that the revolution forces on them - what you propose is that forces be diverted from these vital tasks to preserving the illusion of bourgeois legality.

Bourgeois legality is an illusion because the nature of capitalism prevents judicial trials from being universally fair and based on evidence, not because evidence and procedure aren't better than hearsay and the personal whims of accusers and prosecutors.

Unless of course you genuinely believe that hearsay and whim are better ways of serving justice, in which you are genuinely scary and I should use your own terrible standards against you to denounce you as a counter-revolutionary and have you up against a wall and shot at the first opportunity.

Are you beginning to see the problem now?


I am aware that, if I participate in the revolution - and unlike many who place socialism on the ever-receding horizon, I would like to participate in one - I run the risk of being killed. But I run the same risk today.

John Reed was nearly shot as a spy in Russia; nonetheless he supported the Bolsheviks until his very natural death.

It's easy to be blase about the prospect of being unjustly whacked when there isn't a revolution going on outside your door. I for one would not want to throw my lot in with anyone who would treat the lives of workers as mere collateral.


Historically, that hasn't happened at all, not with the class we are concerned with. If the petite bourgeoisie is scared, well, they should be.

Special pleading. Just because something has never happened in the past, doesn't mean it can't ever happen in the future. Since a genuinely popular proletarian revolution leading to communism also hasn't happened, I guess we can forget about that, right?

[Baseball]

I think it's a mistake to assume that there will be a single revolutionary organisation, especially if as is often stated at least on these forums, the revolution is expected to encompass the entire world

Yep. Which means one has to examine how these different revolutionary organizations will relate with people within its juristiction and with the other revolutionary organizations. The immediate problem is that these organizations are going to need to be vested with the authority commonly associated with entities called "states." Other problems will be trade (remember no currency).

[tallguy]

I don't know about psychopathy in any detail, but have a rough understanding of mental illness from personal experience (depression, anxiety etc).
On the nature-nurture debate, establishing 'truths' in psychology is so close to philosophy that claiming 'scientific' status for a classification of mental behavior poses serious problems of interpretation. I think it was R.D.Lang who did a blind study of psychologists diagnosing mental illness and found that they couldn't tell the difference between the people who were pretending to be ill and the people who were actually ill.

Marxism has a very strong 'nurture' bias because of it's politics (as in arguing for social equality, inequality 'must' be a product of environmental influences if the case is to be made at all). I've never come across a Marxist who thought the mind was a 'blank slate', but I'm sure someone probably tried to indoctrinate people on this basis at some time in the history of communism. I'd have to read up on Soviet psychology to be sure.
Their is room for a 'dialectic' of nature-nurture, but again- this interpretation will be almost totally marginalized from mainstream psychology and wouldn't hold any standing amongst the current scientific community as it is an overwhelmingly ideological/political argument and interpretation of the problem.
Depression and anxiety are on the neuroticism scale and of the three main classes of mental illness (psychopathy, psychoticism and neuroticism), neuroticism is the one that is most influenced by environment. Indeed, neuroticsm might almost be called the existentialist human condition. In other words, if you are human and exist, then you are always going to be at risk of your environment inducing neuritic symptoms. So, ironically, although it neurotic is the one condition most influenced by environment, the environmental influence on its occurrence also tend to be ubiquitous.

I don't wish any misunderstanding to occur here and so I think it may be worthwhile for me to make it clear that I am not discounting environmental influence as being a cause of mental illness. In the case of neuroticism, it is by far the major contributor. and that neuroticism is by far the largest segment of mental illness in any population of humans.

[Red Economist]

Depression and anxiety are on the neuroticism scale and of the three main classes of mental illness (psychopathy, psychoticism and neuroticism), neuroticism is the one that is most influenced by environment. Indeed, neuroticsm might almost be called the existentialist human condition. In other words, if you are human and exist, then you are always going to be at risk of your environment inducing neuritic symptoms. So, ironically, although it neurotic is the one condition most influenced by environment, the environmental influence on its occurrence also tend to be ubiquitous.

That is extremely well-said as I found in my own case that the causes of depression and anxiety are 'ubiquitous'. It is really tricky to pin point what is the actual environmental causes from the perceived environmental ones due to psychological projection and you end up running around in circles emotionally and intellectually. it's really confusing.
As someone taking the insider's view, this is to a very large extent why I'm so skeptical and cautious on the issue; for someone on the outside observing mental illness, it is much more obvious that something is 'wrong' because individual behavior conflicts with what we consider to be realistic expectations. But when you are on the 'inside', it is the very conception of reality that is at fault- though for the neurotic, it is a question of distortions and exaggerations in perception rather than 'delusions'.


I don't wish any misunderstanding to occur here and so I think it may be worthwhile for me to make it clear that I am not discounting environmental influence as being a cause of mental illness. In the case of neuroticism, it is by far the major contributor. and that neuroticism is by far the largest segment of mental illness in any population of humans

That's no problem. I cannot discount genetic or hereditary influences on mental illness either. It is, for me, a question of which one is primary- but this something determined more by ideological bias than any factual or scientific basis. It's one of the biggest downsides of being a Marxist (or more specifically, a dialectician) that you take sides on a discussion without ever knowing if it is entirely true.

The idea of politicizing mental illness is itself highly suspect, as imposing scientific distinctions on what is 'normal' and 'neurotic' behavior leads to Orwellian outcomes and 'thought crime' in it's truest definition; the use of psychiatric hospitals in the USSR to falsely diagnose 'sluggishly progressing schizophrenia' (i.e. anti-soviet attitudes as anti-social) as a way of repressing dissent was a serious abuse of psychological institutions to fulfill political ends and is part of a much wider problem of figuring out how to prevent the abuse of power in communist societies.
Whilst the environmental causes of neuroticism would have be considered in a communist society (especially given that something like 1 in 4 people in the UK will suffer some form of mental illness in the course of their lives)- it is far from certain that this won't produce dystopian results, especially if you take a strong 'scientific' position rather than a more open philosophical one.

As I hadn't thought about the distinction between neuroticism and psychopathy, my experience is therefore is not relevant to discussing psychopathy in particular, but in discussing the premise of mental health, I hope I have at least added something of use.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Sociopathy and asshole-ishness are on top of whatever the function of the job entails.

Alright, so what concrete examples of sociopathic or assholish executives going beyond what is required by the structure of capitalist society did you have in mind?


I think it's a mistake to assume that there will be a single revolutionary organisation, especially if as is often stated at least on these forums, the revolution is expected to encompass the entire world.

The international character of the revolution does not preclude the existence of a single revolutionary organization - in fact I would say it requires such an organization. But that is besides the point. History demonstrates clearly that there can only be one revolutionary communist organization in a given territory; there can be no multipartyism during the revolution.


Also, the torture doesn't have to go on for weeks. That was an extreme example, torture is unacceptable full stop. Aside from the obvious negative effects on the victims, it also dehumanises the perpetrators as well.

Torture is completely useless. Anyone who engages in torture of reactionaries during the revolution ought to be shot - for dereliction of duty.

But during the revolution, the actions of the revolutionaries are to be judged according to their effectiveness and their necessity - I certainly don't think we should rule out procedures that are unpalatable. I genuinely abhor killing people, for example - although there are exceptions - but during the revolution, war, firing squads and worse will be necessary.


Who said anything about objective morality apart from you? My objection to the use of chemical weapons comes from my subjective feelings of disgust that are engendered by studying their effects on people and the environment, not from some academic notion of "objective morality".

Alright, so, why should your personal feelings of disgust constrain the actions of revolutionary authorities?


"Walking and chewing gum" is a figure of speech. It means that if there is a genuinely popular proletarian revolution, there will be plenty of manpower available for a variety of tasks.

"Genuinely popular" in the sense that it is actively supported by a majority of the population? Forget it. For one thing, the proletariat is a distinct minority in most regions of the world. Second, the proletariat is divided into several strata, castes and groups; in the metropole, many such groups' short-term material interest is incompatible with the revolution. The stereotypical prole might have nothing to lose but his chains, but the labor aristocrat has quite a lot to lose. And even the progressive layers of the proletariat are divided, infected with bourgeois ideology, and so on, and so on.

In particular, admitting non-party persons into the security branches has shown itself as a recipe for disaster.


Bourgeois legality is an illusion because the nature of capitalism prevents judicial trials from being universally fair and based on evidence, not because evidence and procedure aren't better than hearsay and the personal whims of accusers and prosecutors.

And you think that trials in the middle of the revolutionary war would be universally fair and based on evidence? I mean, good grief.


Unless of course you genuinely believe that hearsay and whim are better ways of serving justice, in which you are genuinely scary and I should use your own terrible standards against you to denounce you as a counter-revolutionary and have you up against a wall and shot at the first opportunity.

I don't think they are better ways of serving justice, I think revolutionary authorities should concern themselves with victory, not justice.

The rest is irrelevant personal chatter.

[argeiphontes]

For one thing, the proletariat is a distinct minority in most regions of the world.

:confused:

Once, my horoscope in The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/) was, "Today you will finally realize that the common denominator in all of your failed relationships is you." The revolutionary left seems to be missing this crucial insight.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

:confused:

Generally speaking, the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat in most regions of the world - in some the proletariat is outnumbered by an indigenous population not yet subsumed into the workings of modern capitalism, in others by a combination of the peasantry and the middle layers etc. Even when the proletariat is in a majority or plurality, the percentage of proletarians is probably in the 40%-60% range, rather than "the 99%" of a popular petit-bourgeois slogan.

[liberlict]

Generally speaking, the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat in most regions of the world - in some the proletariat is outnumbered by an indigenous population not yet subsumed into the workings of modern capitalism, in others by a combination of the peasantry and the middle layers etc. Even when the proletariat is in a majority or plurality, the percentage of proletarians is probably in the 40%-60% range, rather than "the 99%" of a popular petit-bourgeois slogan.

Makes you wonder if the whole taxonomy is useless, doesn't it.

[liberlict]

Here's (http://carljungdepthpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/02/diagnosing-dictators-cg-jung-1938.html) an interesting little article on Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin by Jung from 1938.



Interestingly, he says the cure for Hitler will be to invade Russia and predicts that that will save Europe. It's an interesting read in its entirety.

(Carl Jung interview with H.R. Knickerbocker in Cosmopolitan [1938] See: C.G. Jung Speaks; Pages 115-135.)

lofl. I love Jung.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Makes you wonder if the whole taxonomy is useless, doesn't it.

Not really. The proletariat is important in Marxist theory not because it constitutes the majority of the population, but because it is the only class whose clear material interest coincides with the overthrow of the regressive capitalist mode of production. The proletariat's strength is not dependent on numbers, but their role in the social relations that define capitalism.

[liberlict]

Not really. The proletariat is important in Marxist theory not because it constitutes the majority of the population, but because it is the only class whose clear material interest coincides with the overthrow of the regressive capitalist mode of production.


Nah. Overthrowing capitalism would worsen the quality of workers' lives, as it has done everywhere it has been tried.

[Comrade #138672]

Liberlict, that is just nonsense. Capitalism has not been overthrown anywhere in history yet. Besides, the revolution attempts happened in non-First World countries, which were already poor to begin with (due to capitalism). Capitalism needs to be overthrown in the First World as well. This coincides with the interests of the proletariat.

[liberlict]

Liberlict, that is just nonsense. Capitalism has not been overthrown anywhere in history yet. Besides, the revolution attempts happened in non-First World countries, which were already poor to begin with (due to capitalism). Capitalism needs to be overthrown in the First World as well. This coincides with the interests of the proletariat.

Germany was a first world country when it was split in half (albeit a bombed out one). I think the wall between the two tells you all you really need to know lol.

[tallguy]

Germany was a first world country when it was split in half (albeit a bombed out one). I think the wall between the two tells you all you really need to know lol.
Capitalism is more efficient at exploiting resources. This puts it at an advantage with communism,. I wouldn't argue with that. However, it does so at great cost to many humans and all of the rest of life. Consequently, this "advantage" only holds true in-perpetuity so long as there is an ever increasing population of ever more voracious consumers with ever more money to spend on ever more products in an environment of infinite resource capacity. If, however, there are limits to any or all of the above, then the inherent flaw in capitalism is exposed.

Yes, indeed, capitalism has been most efficient in taking us to the edge of civilisational collapse far faster than any other system of human organisation could ever have done. Now that collapse is upon us, capitalism is not only utterly useless as well as being horrendously unjust. It's just plain fucking stupid and will be this species' (and the rest of life's) undoing if we don't dump it in short order.

You're not stupid mate. Wake up.

[liberlict]

Capitalism is more efficient at exploiting resources. This puts it at an advantage with communism,. I wouldn't argue with that. However, it does so at great cost to many humans and all of the rest of life. Consequently, this "advantage" only holds true in-perpetuity so long as there is an ever increasing population of ever more voracious consumers with ever more money to spend on ever more products in an environment of infinite resource capacity. If, however, there are limits to any or all of the above, then the inherent flaw in capitalism is exposed.

Yes, indeed, capitalism has been most efficient in taking us to the edge of civilisational collapse far faster than any other system of human organisation could ever have done. Now that collapse is upon us, capitalism is not only utterly useless as well as being horrendously unjust. It's just plain fucking stupid and will be this species' (and the rest of life's) undoing if we don't dump it in short order.

You're not stupid mate. Wake up.

I'm not sure that it's capitalism per se that's getting us into this situation (catastrophic resource depletion), but rather the general process of rapid industrialization. Basically we have all this technological power and we're like the cavemen who just discovered fire, and then burned out half the worlds forests.

I'm not convinced that socialism would do a better job at looking after natural resources. Capitalism fills needs. If we need clean air, clean energy, etc, those needs will be filled.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Nah. Overthrowing capitalism would worsen the quality of workers' lives, as it has done everywhere it has been tried.

So why is it that a worker in the Soviet Union in the thirties - and note that the Soviet economy still retained capitalist features (to say the least) - was better fed, better clothed, with more access to housing, healthcare and education (despite the truly valiant efforts of the bureaucracy to curtail that access) than their equivalent in the Russian Empire?


Germany was a first world country when it was split in half (albeit a bombed out one). I think the wall between the two tells you all you really need to know lol.

East Germany is doing so well now, isn't it? Keep in mind that West Germany, the Bonn Regime, was for all intents and purposes a continuation of Nazi Germany, with the civil service and high state functions being filled with former Nazis, denazification a token measure stopped in the fifties, and many laws of the Nazi government retained, including particularly regressive laws against homosexuality, an extremely misogynist definition of murder etc.


Capitalism is more efficient at exploiting resources. This puts it at an advantage with communism,. I wouldn't argue with that.

If this were the case, communism would be a pipe dream. But no, communism would be more efficient since it combined the outcome of the natural tendency of capitalism toward centralization with a consciously planned economy that eliminates the anarchy of the market, overproduction etc.

[tallguy]

.....communism would be more efficient since it combined the outcome of the natural tendency of capitalism toward centralization with a consciously planned economy that eliminates the anarchy of the market, overproduction etc.You are talking about the most effective conservation of resources there. I didn't say capitalism was better at that. Far from it. Indeed, capitalism is just about the worst system in term of conserving resources. What capitalism is supremely good at, though, is consuming resources and turning them into products. Never mind whether or not those products are actually needed.

[Comrade #138672]

I'm not sure that it's capitalism per se that's getting us into this situation (catastrophic resource depletion), but rather the general process of rapid industrialization. Basically we have all this technological power and we're like the cavemen who just discovered fire, and then burned out half the worlds forests.

I'm not convinced that socialism would do a better job at looking after natural resources. Capitalism fills needs. If we need clean air, clean energy, etc, those needs will be filled.Capitalism does not care about human needs. Those are always and necessarily dominated by profit incentives. If you are talking about filling human needs, then you need socialism.

[liberlict]

Capitalism does not care about human needs. Those are always and necessarily dominated by profit incentives. If you are talking about filling human needs, then you need socialism.

Capitalist doesn't care, hope, cry, love or think. Because it's a concept. But it fills needs, because that's the only place profits come from.

[argeiphontes]

If this were the case, communism would be a pipe dream. But no, communism would be more efficient since it combined the outcome of the natural tendency of capitalism toward centralization with a consciously planned economy that eliminates the anarchy of the market, overproduction etc.

The thing is, that centralization in capitalism takes place within totalitarian institutions (corporations). Not only that, but there are diseconomies of scale that have to be considered that mitigate the gains of centralization. For example, I found this (http://www.sef.hku.hk/~cgxu/0601/ECON0601/Dewatripont-Maskin_SBC_RES95.pdf). Capitalist firms are starting to take advantage of flatter structures, so they're aware that centralization for its own sake isn't all its cracked up to be.

Furthermore, how is economic centralization going to work in a society with allegedly no government? The economic hierarchy of decision making will become the government. There was a thread recently where some people were claiming that there's little or no difference between anarcho-communism and communism. I think they'd be in for a surprise in any attempt at communist implementation.

People like to say that the Soviet Union wasn't communist. Fine, but it did try to eliminate markets in favor of central planning and it had to do it in a totalitarian structure. How would it have worked if it decentralized? Probably not at all, and it would have had to return to the market. Decentralization and planning would probably require some kind of unwieldy Parecon-like, iterative planning scheme with indicative prices, etc, in other words just a slow, inefficient market. Which is what a lot of planning systems are, because when you start injecting democracy into the process you sacrifice efficiency. Not that it's always a bad thing, but I don't think that communism can win any efficiency arguments. You have to start looking at human and ethical justifications. (IMO of course.)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The thing is, that centralization in capitalism takes place within totalitarian institutions (corporations).

Corporations are "totalitarian"? I assume you mean that in corporations the horrifying practice of subordinating an individual's whims to the general plan occurs. Well, good. The same will happen in socialism.


Not only that, but there are diseconomies of scale that have to be considered that mitigate the gains of centralization. For example, I found this (http://www.sef.hku.hk/~cgxu/0601/ECON0601/Dewatripont-Maskin_SBC_RES95.pdf).

You do realize the paper talks about a toy model of credit?


Capitalist firms are starting to take advantage of flatter structures, so they're aware that centralization for its own sake isn't all its cracked up to be.

Yet the most successful corporations tend to be the largest ones as well - consider ArcellorMittal for example - and while small and medium enterprises fail if you give them a stern look, trusts and cartels have to be broken up by the state.


Furthermore, how is economic centralization going to work in a society with allegedly no government? The economic hierarchy of decision making will become the government. There was a thread recently where some people were claiming that there's little or no difference between anarcho-communism and communism. I think they'd be in for a surprise in any attempt at communist implementation.

Central public authorities will still exist, even in communism. The difference is that, one, these authorities will not rely on separate bodies of armed men as the bourgeois state does, nor will they represent the interest of a particular class; these will be organs of society, created to facilitate economic planning. Second, government over men will have been abolished. The authorities will concern themselves with technical matters, not with telling their citizens what language they may speak, who they might fuck and whether they can have an abortion or not.


People like to say that the Soviet Union wasn't communist. Fine, but it did try to eliminate markets in favor of central planning and it had to do it in a totalitarian structure. How would it have worked if it decentralized? Probably not at all, and it would have had to return to the market. Decentralization and planning usually requires some sort of unwieldy Parecon-like iterative scheme with indicative prices, etc, in other words just a slow, inefficient market.

Pretty much, which is why I think "decentralized planning" is crock.

[argeiphontes]

But it fills needs, because that's the only place profits come from.

Half-jokingly:

http://www.fool.com/quote/NYSE/dollar-general/DG/charts?source=itxwebtxt0000009

[NGNM85]

Which is what a lot of planning systems are, because when you start injecting democracy into the process you sacrifice efficiency. Not that it's always a bad thing, but I don't think that communism can win any efficiency arguments. You have to start looking at human and ethical justifications. (IMO of course.)

I would tend to agree with that, but it bears mentioning that; `efficiency', in the abstract, is fairly meaningless. What is it that corporations are efficient at doing? They are (admittedly) efficient at making a profit for their owners, or shareholders, at extracting surplus value. If that's your highest priority, and, in our society, as the capitalist class is the ruling class, the whole of society is structured around this end, then that's great. However, when it comes to meeting human needs, corporations are woefully inefficient. Of course, you alluded to this by mentioning the; `human...ethical justifications', it's just a personal pet peeve of mine as people, particularly in the mainstream media, always talk about the efficiency of corporations without bothering to mention what exactly it is they are so efficient at.

[Bostana]

\But it fills needs, because that's the only place profits come from.


Filling the needs of those who work in sweatshops? Or just the need of the upper-middle class western world and bourgeoisie
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L_H08tHAU2E/TQJ2UdriSNI/AAAAAAAAAAs/DZzEa7Mdztk/s1600/055Mattelfactory_468x310.jpg

[liberlict]

Filling the needs of those who work in sweatshops? Or just the need of the upper-middle class western world and bourgeoisie
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L_H08tHAU2E/TQJ2UdriSNI/AAAAAAAAAAs/DZzEa7Mdztk/s1600/055Mattelfactory_468x310.jpg

Shame china has been retarded by communist economics for so many years .. but they're on their way to being the next superpower since abandoning Maoism.

[Schumpeter]

Filling the needs of those who work in sweatshops? Or just the need of the upper-middle class western world and bourgeoisie
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L_H08tHAU2E/TQJ2UdriSNI/AAAAAAAAAAs/DZzEa7Mdztk/s1600/055Mattelfactory_468x310.jpg

So where would you rather be there or living in fear of this if there is a bad harvest. Globalisation has lifted millions out of absoulte povery and has provided them with a stable income so they are no longer living in fear of starvation and utter destitution.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/22/article-2017839-0D1DF69700000578-541_233x423.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eztJJHg57uM/TKnr4JuEQAI/AAAAAAAAD7E/75N_qiD0rLQ/s1600/great_famine_starve.jpg

[liberlict]

I've met a few Chinese who lament the Sino drift to market-economy. I even met some who support the Tiananmen massacre. I'm not sure why it is really. One of my friends is a Chinese emigrant who came out here to have another child (him and his wife already had one). He says that he wouldn't go back to China for any money in the world, but he is pretty much a Maoist, and subscribes to a stagist theory of history.