Party is not a therapy group?, or mental health and capitalism

[Elsa]

Hey, so I reactivated my old account on this forum because the issue I'm about to describe was really bothering me, and I had no idea where else to ask for advice.


Since few months I've been a member of the youth wing of a local socialist party. While in the last two or three months I wasn't able to attend the meetings regularly because of school and work, I kept in touch with many comrades from the party, and generally regarded all of them as friends (some of them as close friends). Recently I had more time to go to the meetings, which coincided with me being contacted by a friend I met earlier through the party. She had major health problems, because of which she also couldn't be active in the party for a couple of months; I tried to support her as well as I could. I went to a weekly party meeting together with her; there, she confronted the leader of our local group for exluding her from our mailing list without asking her (I have to admit the behaviour was somewhat irrational, as I wasn't more active than her and I was still getting e-mails). The whole situation was quite awkward, but I was sure the other comrades are understanding of her situation and wish her the best.

Then recently I heard a conversation of two comrades from the party speaking about my friend's behaviour (mostly sharing news about her health progress and mental state) in a slightly dismissive manner. I asked another friend from the party about it, and he said that some comrades think, in relation to this issue, that the party should not be a "therapy group", which implies the friend with health problems was sharing too much and distracting us from our political activity. IMHO this shows a very shallow understanding of what capitalism does to our minds and of comradeship. We're together and happy as long as everything goes well, but once someone has problems, she or he is left alone? It also reminded me of how one of the long-time members decided to become inactive for political reasons a few months ago, and I literally never heard his name mentioned again.

I couldn't help but think that if I became inactive, I would be also forgotten, as a friend or possible future supporter in the struggle. Similarly, I thought that if I shared more about my insecurities, it would be considered turning the party into a "therapy group". As a person who has some disorders herself (including social anxiety, relatively mild, but as you can imagine quite debilitating with regards to many party activities), I'm not sure how welcome I feel at this point. Also, looking at other comrades, some of them really pushing their limits for the party, I can't help but think that their behaviour and attitude isn't healthy or really anticapitalist and will end badly in the long run.

Did you ever have similar problems in your parties/organisations? Do you think in a close-knit group of young activists (many of whom are personal friends or even partners) such personal matters should be kept to oneself? I'm writing here because I really don't know what to do in this situation - tell the friend with problems the others think she's sharing too much? Or try to start a discussion about mental health and support we could offer to each other?

[Sentinel]

Did you ever have similar problems in your parties/organisations?

I definitely recognise a lot of what you are talking about. Many organisations share the same kind of problems, as I was in a socialist party-org I can relate to what you describe, but surely for example anarchist orgs share a group of different issues.

I'm currently 'between organisations' myself since about a year and a half, at loss how to find a venue for my political work. As it happens I quit together with many others over a specific organisational/administrative/political disaster in the national section of the International I belonged to, but at that point I had become aware of some of the problems preventing the org, and many other of the same type from growing and thriving - hyperactivism being a major one.


Do you think in a close-knit group of young activists (many of whom are personal friends or even partners) such personal matters should be kept to oneself? I'm writing here because I really don't know what to do in this situation - tell the friend with problems the others think she's sharing too much? Or try to start a discussion about mental health and support we could offer to each other?


My hunch is that the main issue here was the perceived inactivity. I never had this issue myself (I was instead close to a burnout) but saw it happen to many good comrades. It often works in such a way that as long as one is very active, and generally fills the criteria of a 'good cadre' - there are grade differences here as in some orgs are much worse than others, but generally it means work hard and do not be a 'nuisance' ie complain or question the leadership too much - people will be helpful and friendly, and one will rise in the ranks etc.

But if and when one gets the stamp of being inactive, suddenly much less will be 'tolerated', one soon finds oneself excluded from the 'good stuff' and comradery that made one cope with the workload, including tolerance for personal problems etc. Positive treatment is basically used as an incentive to be more active/compliant, while being ignored and left out is used as punishment, which of course is disastrious in any voluntary work, political activism being no exception.

And this then becomes an evil circle, usually leading to the member finally falling out radar totally and then quitting. Now I don't know which party you are in so I can't judge it, but my recommendation is that if there are too many warning signs of this kind of behavior and/or other sectlike symtoms, it is better to get out sooner rather than later, and find a better one before getting disillusioned with activism in general as often happens in these cases.

The problem is often, of course, that there aren't several orgs in the area one lives whose politics one can agree with to the degree of joining and dedicating oneself to. This, ie what could be called a very dubious interpretation of the maxim 'from each according to ability' is, as I see it one of the major issues radical socialists need to work out before we can become a force to be reckoned with.

And do not get me wrong, in my opinion a socialist activist cadre is most certainly supposed to be serious and hardworking. But there must also be tolerance and understanding for peoples changing life situations, health status, etc. Otherwise the party will be reduced to a revolving door membership wise.

[blake 3:17]

There can be problems when political groups do turn into spaces where people do just complain about personal circumstance, but it's also terrible that people don't respect a person's limits.

[Laika]

Hey, so I reactivated my old account on this forum because the issue I'm about to describe was really bothering me, and I had no idea where else to ask for advice.


Since few months I've been a member of the youth wing of a local socialist party. While in the last two or three months I wasn't able to attend the meetings regularly because of school and work, I kept in touch with many comrades from the party, and generally regarded all of them as friends (some of them as close friends). Recently I had more time to go to the meetings, which coincided with me being contacted by a friend I met earlier through the party. She had major health problems, because of which she also couldn't be active in the party for a couple of months; I tried to support her as well as I could. I went to a weekly party meeting together with her; there, she confronted the leader of our local group for exluding her from our mailing list without asking her (I have to admit the behaviour was somewhat irrational, as I wasn't more active than her and I was still getting e-mails). The whole situation was quite awkward, but I was sure the other comrades are understanding of her situation and wish her the best.

Then recently I heard a conversation of two comrades from the party speaking about my friend's behaviour (mostly sharing news about her health progress and mental state) in a slightly dismissive manner. I asked another friend from the party about it, and he said that some comrades think, in relation to this issue, that the party should not be a "therapy group", which implies the friend with health problems was sharing too much and distracting us from our political activity. IMHO this shows a very shallow understanding of what capitalism does to our minds and of comradeship. We're together and happy as long as everything goes well, but once someone has problems, she or he is left alone? It also reminded me of how one of the long-time members decided to become inactive for political reasons a few months ago, and I literally never heard his name mentioned again.

I couldn't help but think that if I became inactive, I would be also forgotten, as a friend or possible future supporter in the struggle. Similarly, I thought that if I shared more about my insecurities, it would be considered turning the party into a "therapy group". As a person who has some disorders herself (including social anxiety, relatively mild, but as you can imagine quite debilitating with regards to many party activities), I'm not sure how welcome I feel at this point. Also, looking at other comrades, some of them really pushing their limits for the party, I can't help but think that their behaviour and attitude isn't healthy or really anticapitalist and will end badly in the long run.

Did you ever have similar problems in your parties/organisations? Do you think in a close-knit group of young activists (many of whom are personal friends or even partners) such personal matters should be kept to oneself? I'm writing here because I really don't know what to do in this situation - tell the friend with problems the others think she's sharing too much? Or try to start a discussion about mental health and support we could offer to each other?

I've had depression for many years now and my understanding of it is that people with mental problems are argubly members of many of the "oppressed groups" in society. A while back I learned about the "social model of disability" which treats disability as the fault of society in contrast to the "medical model of disability" which treats it as the fault of the individual. The "medical model" specifically deals with how Capitalist ideology attrbitues responsibility to individuals for their disability and that it is percieved to be "their fault". Someone with mental or physical "impairment" is treated as less productive than enveryone else because they are a commodity and are valued based on the work they can do. The "social model" would argue that this is to do with the pattern of wage labour and people being evaluated based exclusively on individual performance. the "impairment" is real enough, but the "disability" is the fault of society for discriminating against an individual.

So there is a legitimate debate worth raising on this issue and researching it. However, it is important to keep in mind that the resources of an organisation are not limitless (particuarly time) and political activism is obviously going to be a priority. they are right in that it cannot become a "therapy group", but you can look at people's struggle with mental illness as part of the struggle with capitalist ideology.

Certian aspects of mental illness are internalised norms of society. The mass media sells the ideas that make them money. A large part of it is advertising, but when you are looking at the content of Television shows, books, magazine, newspapers- the same principle applies. it's what sells that counts. You could argue whether it is the fault of the corporation for shaping people's views or people for buying into it- it's a bit of both and they are mutually dependent on each other.
Dealing with mental illness is admittedly "harder" for men because the ideology of masculinity means that men are supposed to not show their feelings and behave as if they are "immune" to pain. This is really bad news for mental health issues (and arguably is the sort of repression that causes mental health problems in the first place) because men are unlikely to seek help and have a higher suicide rate.

Rape Culture means that you have "victim-blaming" for rape victims and that it is somehow "their" fault because they were "too weak" to defend themselves or were "promicious" and so are the victims of their own exaggerated sexuality. both ideas are wrong and are simply part of the "ideology" of society which shifts the blame of rape away from the perpetrator and onto the victim. This again, makes it hard for people to come forward and report rape and the shame involved also means they are unwilling to seek mental help.

I think you should stick by your freind and should consider bringing up the subject in a meeting. it's up to you. I have to concede this is very much "New Left" thinking which can distract away from the class nature of the system of oppression, but it does add to the picture of what Socialists and Communists are fighting against and how people are de-humanised by being treated as commodities. mental illness is a major issue in the west and turning it from being a "medical" thing into an "ideological" one can raise some very good questions. But the taboos on the subject are considerable so you can expect some backlash. You are actually right as it is young people who disproportionately suffer from mental health issues (you can research it but I'm pretty sure) and actually offering some support for activists would be a good idea. It won't cure the mental health issues but it may make them easier to deal with, and maybe get people to strike a balance between their own needs and party work.

If it goes well, you can bring it up in a meeting and then a trickle of people wil start coming forward with their own experiences and may give some momentum for change. the more likely scenario is that many people will simply be dumb struck and sit quietly because they don't want to be seen to be taking your side and "affected" by the issue. This is a "hidden" issue, and its hidden because of the "victim-blaming" ideologies which treat mental illness as the fault of the individual. You can't "save" everyone or make the world a kinder place over night but suggesting that political activism can lead to "burn-out" means it is in the interests of the party to prevent it (because they will lose some of their most hard-working people to it) and at least be aware that mental health issues arise and find ways offer some support for it. As much as many of those in the meeting will be resistent to the idea, you can present it in terms of "alienation" and "exploitation" and show that it is part of Capitalism's consequences and how the working class (and society in general) are de-humanised into robots whose sole purpose is to "work hard" irrespective of their own feelings.

But you are breaking a taboo, and walking away from "safe" and highly abstract subjects that are happening to "someone else". Mental health issues are much more personal. that gets under people's skin but that's because it matters to them and they don't want to get hurt by opening up and being called "weak" for showing their emotions. whatever anyone says, its worth a try. :)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm not a big critical theory nerd, but this bit of Adorno, from Minima Moralia might speak to the issue at hand in a useful way:


Cat out of the bag. – Even solidarity, socialism’s most honorable mode of conduct, is ill. At one time it wished to realize the doctrine of brotherhood, to wrest it from the generality in which it was an ideology, reserving it for the particular, the Party, which was supposed to solely represent the generality in the antagonistic world. Groups of human beings were solidaristic because they committed their lives together, and because their own lives were, in view of the tangible possibility, not the most important thing, so that they were prepared to sacrifice themselves for each other without the abstract obsession of the idea but also without individual hope. Such giving up of self-preservation had as a prerequisite the recognition and freedom of the decision: lacking these, the blind interest of the particular reimposes itself. Meanwhile however solidarity has passed over into the trust that the Party has a thousand eyes, into enlistment into uniformed workers’ battalions which are assumed to be stronger, in swimming along with the current of world-history. Whatever is to be temporarily gained in security from this, is paid for with permanent fear, sycophancy, mutual backscratching and ventriloquy: the energies which one could have used to feel out the weakness of the enemy are used to anticipate the moods of one’s own leaders, before whom one trembles deep down more than before the old enemy, intuiting that in the end the leaders both here and there will come to an accommodation on the backs of those they have integrated. The reflex of this can be felt between individuals. Whoever is considered progressive – according to the stereotypes to which people are classified in advance, without even signing the imaginary contract which seems to bind the true believers, who are themselves to be recognized by something imponderable in gesture and speech, a kind of rough-hewn, obedient resignation, like a password – always has the same experience. The true believers, or those in related factions who are all too similar, meet you and expect solidarity from you. They appeal expressly and implicitly to the common progressive agenda [Einverständnis]. However, the moment when you hope for the slightest sign of the same solidarity from them, or even mere sympathy for your own share of the social product of suffering, they show you the cold shoulder, which is the only thing left remaining of atheism and materialism in the age of restored popes. Those who are organized want intellectuals of prominence to issue proclamations on their behalf, but the moment they fear they have to issue proclamations for themselves, the latter are capitalists, and the same prominence on which they speculated is now ludicrous sentimentality and stupidity. Solidarity is polarized in the desperate fidelity of those for whom there is no way back, and in the virtual extortion of those who want nothing to do with prison wardens, nor wish to deliver themselves to robbers.

[pastradamus]

Hi Elsa! Go Poland!

If I may be personal I've had numerous people in my life with mental health issues. Im a HUGE supporter of people who struggle with these difficulties. As I always say "you'd feel sorry for me if I got cancer or heart attack, the second my brain get sick you avoid me". I don't know you elsa but I know your are a proper friend of that person - and well done for that! To answer your question - YES. There is as much a stigma among leftists as the is among capitalists about mental health. This is an issue I myself have fought in the past. My father has a mental illness but we got there in time and he's fixed now on good medication. I'm proud of my father. You should be proud of your friend. If the socialist party have a problem with this then fuck them.

[Heretek]

Hello Elsa, sorry to hear about that group and their behavior.

The sad thing is, A) a lot of groups are near cult like, especially with their obsession on whatever their particular tendency is or whoever their revered ideologues are, and B) most groups are horribly out of touch with the modern era, still living in 1914 and pretending we aren't an ineffectual group of fools.

The truth is groups need to adapt to new situations. Or we need new groups. Parties and unions used to be a reprieve from capitalism, a means to fight back. Now they're so outmoded there are liberals relating to capitalism's problems more than we are. Behavior such as you describe is basically perpetuating oppression, not combating it. I'd say broach the topic and see how they react. If it's anything but positive, well, it's probably better to ditch it. If your friend is *super* eager to stay, advise them of the "problem." If your friends are so eager to forget you and your comrades, perhaps they aren't the best of friends and comrades. And if it is true (I know you didn't post this) about the leaders expecting conformity and no questions, they're probably even worse than you describe. Communism and Anarchism represent a society of equals, not a new social hegemony painted red.

Best of luck to you.