I've been wondering, several years now, why no one is addressing (psychoanalyzing) the world's culture, or more specifically the culture of the collective west. I guess it could only be a sociologist turned psychoanalyst who felt compelled to take it on. This reality is profound, and I am both thrilled that the blinders have been momentarily removed, and depressed, simultaneously. I hope that this conversation will open doors for an ongoing, worldwide, conversation so that we can acquire a deep understanding of contemporary society. Thank you Don Carveth.

@doncarveth

4 ай бұрын

Thank you.

You are looking well Dr Carveth (good to see). I am a middle aged white gay man. I feel slightly inoculated against contemporary "anti (old) white male" rhetoric if only because it's nothing compared to the shame and hatred I felt as a homosexual boy / younger man. I feel devastated to realize that my attempts over 50 years to "communicate," the best parts of myself to others were always doomed in the face this impenetrable collective madness. Where are we going? I don't know.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

No we’re good, unless good people stand up to it. Thank you for sharing

Carveth is staring into the face of the most dangerous creature of our time and perhaps of all time.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, I think you’re right

This was excellent. Really appreciate it.

This was very informative. Thank you.

Were not animals but spiritual beings, manipulated by other dimensions without our consent. Violence and aggression is good and results in greater understanding of self and necessary social change. The lack of individuality has resulted in a mass form of mental illness that justifies authoritarian policy and actions towards individuals. Boundaries are the solution.

It's weird going to a university seeing many of my fellow students falling into madness. There is so much to speak up about. I'm a communist, I want to see individuals prosper and treated in a humane way, but more often than not I feel myself isolated if I'm confronted with the willingness of comrades to be antirational in their responses to injustice. This week there's a discussion of (very critical) experts and one politician of the conservative party about a new migration policy. Initially I was very interested to listen to the debate to learn about the details of a complex law, that I don't comprehend on my own. But now I was informed that a local group of "left wingers" want to disrupt the whole thing, because of the one conservative politician. My curiosity turned into resignation and embarassment. Some colleagues and I organised a seminar on Marxism and we read a text by Richard Wolff in the seminar in which he mentions that Marxists give other advice on "policy reforms" than neoclassical thinkers. Just the mention of participation in policy making made people anxious, because good revolutionaries are always against the state. It's so over the top. There are countless more examples Speaking from the heart with the possibility of saying something, that might hurt someone in such a climate is so hard. You always fear the vengeful attackers just looking for you to say something inappropriate. There's little empathy, little room for reparatory acts and difference of opinion. It makes you shut up and doubt yourself

@doncarveth

11 ай бұрын

Amen Brother. Good to hear a humanistic Marxist voice.

@123456789987o

11 ай бұрын

@@doncarveth We have to stick together. I'm so glad that I found your channel!

Hi Don. I recall some time ago you interviewed a woman who was a specialist on borderline personality disorder, and she spoke of how they will manufacture situations that recreate the trauma that they suffered, that reproduce their core wound. This is my language, but the basic idea was to manufacture chaos that reproduced the situation that resulted in their trauma. I hope this rings a bell for you. I’d be interested in rewatching this video, if you could help me find it. Hope all is well. Thanks.

@doncarveth

11 ай бұрын

That's just the repetition compulsion, not specific to any personality disorder.

@ewallt

11 ай бұрын

@@doncarveth I was saying that to try to help identify the video. Do you know the video I have in mind? If so, I’d like to rewatch it. Thanks.

@doncarveth

11 ай бұрын

@@ewallt I know it. It featured my wife. She does not want it to be re-posted.

@ewallt

11 ай бұрын

@@doncarveth Oh I didn’t know that was your wife. Ok, thanks for responding. I’ve studied npd a great deal, but not bpd as much. Thanks for your response.

Prof, I am in the process of writing a commentary on your book on Guilt (great read), but thought I'd post my main point here: Isn't your take on the 'demolition' of the superego something quite superego-ish and authoritarian? And Strachey's suggestion of 'modification' is something more akin to the conscience and understanding?

@doncarveth

4 ай бұрын

That’s not accurate. I reject Freud’s idea of demolition of the superego, and I state the reasons why. I accept Stacy‘s idea of modification, but point out that he gives no basis for knowing in what direction the super ego needs to be modified for that we need a conscience.

@mpconsta4848

4 ай бұрын

​​@@doncarveth That's helpful, thanks for clarifying. Whilst you did not explicitly endorse the 'demolition' argument, it is in your suggestions of "subject[ing] it [the superego] to the of the authority of the conscience" (p. 30) and that 'therapeutic progress requires us to progressively erode the autonomy of the superego and bring it under the authority of and subject it to discipline by the conscience' (p. 32), which to me, sounds quite authoritarian! But I see that your argument is about guiding or "standing up to" the superego (our moral order) in light of our conscience (or ethical compass), rather than the other way around. Put simply: Love over hate. In some ways, you could say that separating out the superego from conscience is a Kleinian, topological revision of Freudian structural theory of mind (i.e. integrating PS and D into the structural model), which is rather innovative. However, this leaves me wondering what the role of the ego is. You reject the function of a moral ego because it is a thinking ego based on rationality. If that is so, then what purpose does it serve? Isn't it in its very nature of symbolizing or mentalizing that we can see a different side to our 'enemy'? That we can develop a capacity to love rather than hate? In other words, doesn't the process of "conscience" occur out of the balancing and integration by the ego of the structures that you call superego and conscience, or what we could call life and death drives?

@doncarveth

4 ай бұрын

@@mpconsta4848 I don’t negate either the ego or rationality, I merely stress their limits. Reason cannot deduce a lot from an is. Science is descriptive not prescriptive. Rationality is necessary, but there are problems it cannot solve.

Hey Don, your videos and books have helped me get my degree in counseling by helping me to understand my patients. I'm forever grateful! I'm reading André Green's On Private Madness and really resonate with what he writes, both professionally and personally. Any chance you could be interested in generating a video about Green's body of work? I would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks!

@doncarveth

11 ай бұрын

Greg, good idea. Very busy at the moment on other projects, but if and when I get time…

The term "inappropriate," comes to mind with the new war on sex.

Thanks as always for a great talk. I want to make a comment about your critical take on 'revolutionary politics' that I've made before on another video. You started as a Trotskyist and saw the error of that. Fine - and understandable given that their strategy involves manipulating the working class and an exultation of minority action. But why do you assume thatt accepting Deutscher's critique of Trotskyism must entail a rejection of revoutionary politics? I think quite the opposite - Deutscher's text is just one of many illuminating the bankruptcy of the Bolshevik model and is actually a defence of revolutionary politics. Leninism and Trotskyism completely distorted Marxism and the revolutionary tradition, which is democratic, majoritarian and non-violent. They do not represent revolutionary Marxism, as you suggest in your talks. One might look at the World Socialist Movement as one example of genuine Marxism today - revolutionary, democratic and non-violent. Why the need to mix this up with Trotskyism? To put it another way, it was the Mensheviks, not the Bolsheviks who were the revolutionaries. Anyway, thank you for reading my screed!

@doncarveth

11 ай бұрын

Thank you. But I have trouble linking democratic with revolutionary. And if the goals of Marxism, or pursued democratically, as I would certainly support, I don’t see how we can call that revolutionary. To me, the term revolution suggests something abrupt, whereas democratic politics, entails, gradual reform. Reformist rather than revolutionary. I suppose enough radical reforms could amount to something revolutionary, perhaps.

@shellyshelly9218

11 ай бұрын

@@doncarveth Thanks for this response. I now see where we disagree. I think that we can only have a revolution relatively abruptly, as history shows clearly that capitalism simply grows back where it's been temporarily curtailed. Reformism has manifestly failed. But revolution also has to be democratic - whether or not we agree, this was Marx's mature view after the bitter lesson of the Paris Commune. Winning the "battle of democracy" by convincing the majority of the need for revolutionary socialism was - and in my opinion still is - the key. Thanks again for all your fabulous videos, they're an excllent resource and an inspiration.