ReadFanon

Oh, shit. Well I'm glad that I mentioned that last part then because I almost didn't do it. I hope it turns out to be useful advice for you!

I don't disagree with what you've said here entirely. Capitalism absolutely aggravates mental illness and it produces conditions that generate mental ill health.

But ascertaining the correct etiology of a condition doesn't necessarily have an impact on the treatment. Say a person is experiencing liver failure due to alcoholism. The cause is alcoholism, the condition is liver failure, and yet the treatment remains the same whether or not it was alcoholism that brought about the condition.

In the same way, we can attribute much of psychiatric disorders to capitalism but, at least for the individual, the treatment remains the same.

I think we need to be cautious to avoid a puritanical attitude towards psychiatric meds. I could write a book based on my criticisms of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry and how they operate, however at the same time we shouldn't discourage people from the appropriate use of medications to improve their wellbeing regardless of how ruthless and exploitative the pharmaceutical industry itself is. The system is going to be fucked whether or not someone has an appropriate medication regime for their mental health. The only difference is that one option means an improved quality of life.

It's also important to keep in mind though that there are certain mental illnesses that do require an ongoing medication regime for maintenance and that this would persist under socialism. Schizophrenia and bipolar are two very obvious examples here. Even under fully automated luxury gay space communism, the overwhelming majority of cases of bipolar and schizophrenia are going to require ongoing medication regimes.

Unsolicited advice incoming but you rightfully put a lot of emphasis on the emotional dysregulation aspect of ADHD, which gets chronically overlooked.

Personally I have found that clonidine works really well for my experience of emotional dysregulation and rejection sensitivity. It's a boring medication - typically it's just used for lowering blood pressure and it's quite safe and generally well tolerated. (Obviously stimulant medications increase your BP so taking something that reduces your BP as a side effect is actually beneficial in the long term.)

It might be something that is worth looking into for yourself given what you wrote here.

As a sidebar, I also experience PTSD and clonidine helps with managing my trauma response. One perk of the medication is that it's fast acting and you don't get major withdrawals from it so if I had a ton of trauma nightmares the night before or if I'm struggling with PTSD symptoms during the day for whatever reason, I can just increase my dose as needed on that particular day and it helps keep things manageable for me.

There needs to be further research on this but ADHD occurs in autistic people at an approximate rate of somewhere between 20-40%.

There's very little out there about autism or ADHD for adults and almost nothing about comorbid autism and ADHD in adults.

Speaking anecdotally as someone who is autistic and an ADHDer, I fit into neither the ADHD nor the autism categories neatly. My ADHD traits often counterbalance my autistic traits and, likewise, my autistic traits often counterbalance my ADHD traits. (At least when they aren't ganging up on me.) It's very complex.

I'd call BE an eclectic Marxist tbh.

He definitely holds his fair share of ultra positions but he's not actually an ultra; he mentioned that he considered Stalin to be 50/50 good/bad and Mao to be 70/30. An ultra wouldn't say anything like that (despite my objections that those names at the least need to be swapped around; not to start a struggle session but Stalin made a lot of choices that were either under duress or the best of a bad set of options while Mao made some major fuckups all by himself, although I think both figures need higher ratings tbh.)

One thing that wasn't mentioned in that post is that BE denied the fact that BA415 faced any credible threat because he wasn't at risk of being killed after being doxed.

For one thing, I believe it was France that had its demographic data used to aid in identifying the people who were put into concentration camps and/or exterminated; just because your personal information is safe today under the current regime is no assurance that your personal information won't be used against you tomorrow under different circumstances.

Another thing is that this is just completely false. It's not a stretch to imagine that he might have been swatted and that during the swatting he could have gotten killed, either through typical Yankee cop negligence or by something more malicious and planned.

Last of all, being doxed can pose a significant threat to your safety and wellbeing without credible threats to your life. Just because nobody is coming around to your address to put a bullet in your head doesn't mean that they aren't ordering a barrage of pizzas at all times of the night, that people can't threaten, intimidate, or harass you, that they can't interfere with your job, that they can't get you fired, evicted, or brought up on false charges etc.

I'd love to get BE to respond on stream to a question about why he keeps his identity and residence away from public knowledge because he'd immediately give half a dozen reasons why this is the case without needing a moment to think about it. It would really undermine this shitty hot take of his.

To be fair, I'm not sure that there's a whole lot that you'd be able to do to that car with a hammer that this driver hadn't already done themselves.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing at all.

Add "no bosses" to that list too.

Y'all think that any sort of construction or manufacturing is going to run in a self-organised fashion without foremen? Lol, good luck.

If you've never worked in a factory before, that's cool but there are much better ways of announcing this fact and I think that it's important to remember the old "No investigation, no right to speak" or, in their terms "In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker".

I try not to focus too much on these types because I'm convinced that a couple of years of touching grass, working for a living, and spending time doing on the ground organising will bring these infantile urges in people to a conclusion in all but the most stubborn-minded. Although you can cut through these naive ideological positions by tracing out how there was (vulgar) vanguardism in their favourite historical socialist projects and how leadership was crucial to their functioning. That being said I have more important things to do with my time than engaging people with discussions on that stuff tbh.

Yeah, more broadly the western left is in shambles but to see how (comparatively) rapidly it's shaping up gives me hope.

This could be representative of the circles I've moved in with my own political journey but MLism wasn't even on the table. Heck, being a revolutionary wasn't really either. If you look at, say, the anti-globalisation protests and the anti-war movement(s) around the bush era the left was mostly what I'd characterise as being extremely progressive. There was a time when Naomi Klein was extremely influential on this cohort.

Nowadays Klein isn't a name I see brought up in the left except for the very rare mention of her underrated documentary The Take because the left is much more radical now than she is.

There was a time where the compatible left was the left and it didn't have to go around proclaiming that Marxism-Leninism is a "dead ideology" which, if you look at it from the perspective of Implicature or you're a bit Hegelian about it, it's pretty obvious that if Marxism-Leninism really was dead then nobody would need to proclaim this fact because:

a) It would be self-evident; nobody needs to proclaim that Manichaeism is dead because it's already true

b) It would be irrelevant to say as much since it is already dead; I'd venture that most people haven't got a clue what Manichaeism even is because Manichaeism truly is dead

The opposite is true for Marxism-Leninism.

Nowadays there's a couple of major splits within the radical and circa-radical left, as I see it:

1. There's the essentially silent movement where people log off, touch grass, and are dedicated to organising in their communities. This isn't really seen unless you're embedded in an org or an online circle where you know people in it and you see them check out of their online presence in favour of on the ground work. But it's certainly happening although because this shift is predicated upon not announcing it online and not constantly touting it on social media it is largely invisible.

2. There's the radical left vs the compatible left split. This is where you see one side sheepdogging everyone to vote for the Dems and denouncing tankies as "ruining the left for everyone else" etc. vs the people who are capable of critiquing the progressive left and doing self-crit on the actual left who engage in materialist analysis and serve as the spectre haunting the internet because they are more organised, generally much better informed and more well-versed in theory etc.

The fact that Marxism-Leninism is on the rise is no accident. People have seen the failures of movements like Occupy and the CHAZ and they've learned from them. The material conditions have rapidly changed over the past two decades and I'd argue that this has a significant impact on people's ideological positions. Your political development arc mirrors that of a lot of people who are now communist too.

If you take PatSocs, as an example, this was essentially a line struggle that developed in the broader western left. I'd say that it's pretty much dead in the water now, thankfully. But there was a split in the ideological positions and the western left hashed out its position on regressive nationalism extremely rapidly. This is characteristic of a vital movement that is thriving and honing itself and that alone is worth celebrating because it means that not only is there enough people in a movement to cause a split(!!) but the movement is developing and it will continue to do so with future splits too.

To go from "Oh no, we must be conscious consumers and stop supporting sweatshops with our hard earned cash!!" to "Let's set up camp outside Wall Street and... idk but we'll figure out the rest later lol" to "We are going to read Marx and Lenin and we're going to seize the state by force" is a very promising development arc.

When your ideology is primarily individualist and largely aesthetic, you end up with a ton of people who treat their political orientation as a fashion statement.

Speaking as an ex-anarchist, there's a massive trend in anarchism to not be focused on the ideological distinctions between the plethora of anarchist subtypes but instead to align oneself to a flavour of anarchism which is most appealing.

In communist thought you have very clear distinctions which are based on theoretical and practical disagreements (practical in the sense of socialism being put into practice); you have leftcoms and Trotskyists and council communists and MLs and MLMs etc. All of whom you can trace out their positions and their ideological stances from.

In anarchism it's much more about what the individual is most attracted to as a cause than this. Sure there are platformists, DeLeonists, and egoists, for example, which fit what I've mentioned above about disagreements on theory and practice but you're more likely to find an anarcha-feminist or an eco-anarchist than you will a DeLeonist or a platformist imo.

With that in mind it should come as no surprise that so much of anarchism is focused on fashion.

So American-centric you'd think there's barely any other country besides the US

Like all MPs, I had no further information than the Speaker provided

I, too, do not have a smartphone or an internet connection 😔