As a recently graduated psychotherapist who is delving into marxism, I stumbled onto this and am so glad that I did! I am fascinated by the ways psychotherapists can organize together and advocate against capitalism that is inflicting so much of the mental health issues that folks are struggling with. Thank you for this piece!
Thanks Calvin, this is a really interesting and well written piece. Im commenting after your reference to this article on my sigmund freud article. Here you have referenced the idea that “Great Men shape history through Great Big Ideas”. You have put this in a context of capitalism as a whole and a society looking for these ‘great men’. So yes, this is the whole other side of the same coin - the societal forces vs what im focussing in on which is the individual factors - the question ‘why Sigmund Freud and not the boy next door?’.
I dont think im really asking about what gets us to socialism. I agree that everyone has problem traits. But the people we choose to lead us are extreme cases, and this is an uncovered story, because idealisation covers this over. Its a very different question. But i think it has consequences that we are facing today.
Right, and my claim here is that anyone who wants the better world of the future who isn’t trying to move us to socialism is de facto keeping us in capitalism. That’s okay if you’re a liberal, people are allowed to be liberals obviously.
I don’t think it’s an uncovered story- liberal society is much quicker to attribute a bad society to individual personality traits of elected leaders than to examine that same society’s problem from a Marxist perspective. This analysis is much easier to understand with dialectical materialism.
In a communist party for example - or at least a healthy one structured correctly - anyone who doesn't like what the leader is saying or doing can address this through internal democratic methods. There will never be a way to set up some psycho-techno-cratic methodology to screen for personality disorders and keep narcissists or sociopaths from entering into positions of leadership- you actually need some narcissism for good leadership. People have to want to be "above others" and must see themselves as capable as being in that role. The question in a society as complicated as ours at this juncture of history is how we create inter-party mechanisms that can offer feedback mechanisms for behavior we don't like, which just leads to organizations with strong internal democracy.
Yes im not actually suggesting we diagnose leaders in order to manage leadership. And yes leaders need narcissistic traits. But trauma and narcissism can affect behaviour and relationships in destructive ways and i am exploring, essentially, how narcissism leads us to elect bad behaviour (and relational patterns) to leadership.
Sorry if i was being obscure. I just meant that i am dealing with factors at the individual level: what makes little sigmund turn into an iconic leader and the kid next door not. Im accepting there are some genetic factors but focussing on childhood experiences indicated by psychological theory.
yeah i'm also a therapist i get it, individual level. but when i'm not at work, i'm doing socialist activism. because i want to get us to socialism, from capitalism. working on the individual level can only keep us in capitalism.
Sure. I guess im asking a particular question: what are the consequences if we select and elect extreme narcissism to lead us politically and culturally. This too may be likely to perpetuate capitalism more than socialism. But then Putin is not a capitalist as such…
I'm unconvinced that it's a helpful question. To me the question should be how do we get to socialism. Everyone has bad personality traits, so focusing on that I don't think gets us to socialism. What gets us to socialism, from capitalism?
This was such a compelling and accessible breakdown. Framing historical materialism alongside Erikson’s psychosocial model is brilliant, especially for therapists who’ve internalized the latter but never had Marxist theory mapped out in such a familiar structure. It makes the abstract tangible.
I also really appreciate the humility around what therapy can’t do. It’s a tough but necessary conversation, our work may soothe symptoms of capitalist harm, but it doesn’t dismantle the system producing the harm in the first place. I’d love to read the next part on dialectics and DBT, and how (or if) our therapeutic tools could ever become part of broader organizing efforts. Keep writing when you can. This is gold.
I don't see what we do as building toward socialism in and of itself, honestly. I've been watching and briefly had participated in a lot of stuff therapists propose around 'collective healing' and all kinds of thing, and I don't really see it. In the dialectical materialism piece I'll focus mainly on the standard base-superstructure concept, with the graphic of it in the beginning, and have therapists really ask themselves whether anything we do touches the base.
My claim is if it doesn't touch the base, it can't build toward socialism. I understand arguments about how you have to work within the superstructure in order to touch the base, but these often feel like very weak and theoretically hollow arguments.
Thank you for this, and for saying it so clearly. I can see now why you’re drawing that firm line: if the work doesn’t engage the material base directly, it risks becoming a pressure valve instead of a lever for structural change.
I think I was holding onto the idea that maybe certain therapeutic practices could be radical if embedded in organizing work, or if they helped people reclaim agency enough to act collectively. But I totally get your point that if it never touches the base, it doesn’t matter how trans-formative it feels.
Looking forward to the dialectics piece, I think it’ll help me get clearer on where therapy ends and where political action has to begin.
I just think every leftist needs to be an active and non-paper member of some kind of class struggle / socialist organization, that's it. That's all that'll build toward socialism. Therapists can do that. Therapy can't do that.
I know it's pedantic of me but light-years is a measurement of distance not time.
be a dick about this one
https://socialtherapist.substack.com/p/part-4-is-dialectical-behavioral?utm_source=activity_item
haha i love how pedantic that is
As a recently graduated psychotherapist who is delving into marxism, I stumbled onto this and am so glad that I did! I am fascinated by the ways psychotherapists can organize together and advocate against capitalism that is inflicting so much of the mental health issues that folks are struggling with. Thank you for this piece!
Yay! Did you read all 3 parts to the series? The first one will prob resonate most
Yes please come through with the dialectical materialism/dbt article!!! 🙏
ok
https://socialtherapist.substack.com/p/part-4-is-dialectical-behavioral?utm_source=activity_item
Thanks Calvin, this is a really interesting and well written piece. Im commenting after your reference to this article on my sigmund freud article. Here you have referenced the idea that “Great Men shape history through Great Big Ideas”. You have put this in a context of capitalism as a whole and a society looking for these ‘great men’. So yes, this is the whole other side of the same coin - the societal forces vs what im focussing in on which is the individual factors - the question ‘why Sigmund Freud and not the boy next door?’.
I dont think im really asking about what gets us to socialism. I agree that everyone has problem traits. But the people we choose to lead us are extreme cases, and this is an uncovered story, because idealisation covers this over. Its a very different question. But i think it has consequences that we are facing today.
Right, and my claim here is that anyone who wants the better world of the future who isn’t trying to move us to socialism is de facto keeping us in capitalism. That’s okay if you’re a liberal, people are allowed to be liberals obviously.
I don’t think it’s an uncovered story- liberal society is much quicker to attribute a bad society to individual personality traits of elected leaders than to examine that same society’s problem from a Marxist perspective. This analysis is much easier to understand with dialectical materialism.
In a communist party for example - or at least a healthy one structured correctly - anyone who doesn't like what the leader is saying or doing can address this through internal democratic methods. There will never be a way to set up some psycho-techno-cratic methodology to screen for personality disorders and keep narcissists or sociopaths from entering into positions of leadership- you actually need some narcissism for good leadership. People have to want to be "above others" and must see themselves as capable as being in that role. The question in a society as complicated as ours at this juncture of history is how we create inter-party mechanisms that can offer feedback mechanisms for behavior we don't like, which just leads to organizations with strong internal democracy.
Yes im not actually suggesting we diagnose leaders in order to manage leadership. And yes leaders need narcissistic traits. But trauma and narcissism can affect behaviour and relationships in destructive ways and i am exploring, essentially, how narcissism leads us to elect bad behaviour (and relational patterns) to leadership.
How about join a socialist organization and help us build socialism?
I think there’s more than one valid topic of concern on substack and we may be richer for having a diversity of interests.
For sure, it's okay to be a liberal.
I don't totally understand this. What is 'the boy next door' ?
Sorry if i was being obscure. I just meant that i am dealing with factors at the individual level: what makes little sigmund turn into an iconic leader and the kid next door not. Im accepting there are some genetic factors but focussing on childhood experiences indicated by psychological theory.
yeah i'm also a therapist i get it, individual level. but when i'm not at work, i'm doing socialist activism. because i want to get us to socialism, from capitalism. working on the individual level can only keep us in capitalism.
Sure. I guess im asking a particular question: what are the consequences if we select and elect extreme narcissism to lead us politically and culturally. This too may be likely to perpetuate capitalism more than socialism. But then Putin is not a capitalist as such…
I'm unconvinced that it's a helpful question. To me the question should be how do we get to socialism. Everyone has bad personality traits, so focusing on that I don't think gets us to socialism. What gets us to socialism, from capitalism?
This was such a compelling and accessible breakdown. Framing historical materialism alongside Erikson’s psychosocial model is brilliant, especially for therapists who’ve internalized the latter but never had Marxist theory mapped out in such a familiar structure. It makes the abstract tangible.
I also really appreciate the humility around what therapy can’t do. It’s a tough but necessary conversation, our work may soothe symptoms of capitalist harm, but it doesn’t dismantle the system producing the harm in the first place. I’d love to read the next part on dialectics and DBT, and how (or if) our therapeutic tools could ever become part of broader organizing efforts. Keep writing when you can. This is gold.
I don't see what we do as building toward socialism in and of itself, honestly. I've been watching and briefly had participated in a lot of stuff therapists propose around 'collective healing' and all kinds of thing, and I don't really see it. In the dialectical materialism piece I'll focus mainly on the standard base-superstructure concept, with the graphic of it in the beginning, and have therapists really ask themselves whether anything we do touches the base.
My claim is if it doesn't touch the base, it can't build toward socialism. I understand arguments about how you have to work within the superstructure in order to touch the base, but these often feel like very weak and theoretically hollow arguments.
Thank you for this, and for saying it so clearly. I can see now why you’re drawing that firm line: if the work doesn’t engage the material base directly, it risks becoming a pressure valve instead of a lever for structural change.
I think I was holding onto the idea that maybe certain therapeutic practices could be radical if embedded in organizing work, or if they helped people reclaim agency enough to act collectively. But I totally get your point that if it never touches the base, it doesn’t matter how trans-formative it feels.
Looking forward to the dialectics piece, I think it’ll help me get clearer on where therapy ends and where political action has to begin.
I just think every leftist needs to be an active and non-paper member of some kind of class struggle / socialist organization, that's it. That's all that'll build toward socialism. Therapists can do that. Therapy can't do that.
blue scazre