I firmly believe a lot of current mental health issues are worsened by living under capitalism, as do others. Some of the most obvious examples to me are:
- Anxiety about being able to afford food and housing, having a stable job, not having emergency medical events, etc.
- Depression from not having free time due to being overworked, or from not being able to afford entertainment and distraction, etc.
One potential remedy to mental health issues has been developing in the form of psychedelic therapy. Besides the issues related to restricting access by making the treatment prohibitively expensive (both the drug and the administering physician) that are seemingly unavoidable in profit-driven healthcare systems, I think there’s a massive danger in using psychedelics to effectively pacify people.
Psychedelics can be used maliciously, in that they can be used to help people accept their life as it is–this sounds fine, until you realize that it can be used to make people accept being exploited and being effectively destitute. I think the problem here is that the medical institutions (and probably most patients) are going to have the goal of: being less depressed, less anxious, etc. If psychedelics were actually used to “wake people up to their reality”, they’d probably become more depressed, more anxious, etc–counter to the stated goals. I think one of the first steps towards wanting to change the existing system is seeing the flaws in the existing system and how one is negatively affected by it.
Then, if psychedelics are (going to be) used to pacify people suffering under capitalism, is their widespread adoption not a bad thing? If people are willfully blinding themselves to their suffering, is any hint of revolutionary spirit being extinguished?
I don’t think these issues are unique to psychedelics, either. If existing depression treatments numb you to all emotion, good and bad, they can make existing while being exploited more bearable.
I think its no different from any other medicine. Overwhelmingly, the burden of disease in modern society is attributable to social determinants of health which all stem from societal inequality and exploitation under capitalism. Type 2 diabetes is also a disease of capitalist overproduction of calorie dense foods at the expense of healthier complex carbohydrates. Is it anti-revolutionary for someone to take metformin to treat their diabetes?
On mental health specifically, of course social and societal factors under capitalism are significant preconditions for people developing mental health disorders - however they are not the only factor. I think its a mischaracterisation to say these treatments are aimed at “pacifying” the population. They are aimed primarily at alleviating suffering, otherwise people wouldn’t take them. People don’t want to be pacified, they just want to feel better. As an aside I can tell you no depressed person is going to be doing much revolutionary organising. On the contrary someone with their depression treated is much more likely to be getting revolutionary shit done. There’s no grand conspiracy to keep the populace medicated and in line, its just the grand conspiracy to profit off a medicine that people want to buy because it soothes their psychic angst.
I see what you’re saying, and agree with the broad points. I still consider mental health treatment different than “physical” health issues, but I am struggling to clearly articulate the meaningful difference in this context.
They are aimed primarily at alleviating suffering, otherwise people wouldn’t take them. People don’t want to be pacified, they just want to feel better.
I agree completely. However, I think that given that–barring actually changing the underlying system–the only way to feel better is to obliviate yourself to the underlying issue or to do “palliative” treatment (eg, spending more time in nature, or getting more exercise). While I agree that someone deep in depression is unlikely to have much revolutionary drive, I also don’t think someone who is generally satisfied emotionally will have much revolutionary drive.
I don’t think its a conspiracy; that is, I don’t think drug companies are pushing for psychedelic therapy because it diminishes revolutionary drive, or anything like that. I do believe that positive patient outcomes are probably the primary driver here (with profit-motive probably not far behind). I don’t think that means that there’s can’t be incidentals though, which could include what I’ve suggested could happen.
That’s a very interesting thought.
The USA tried using psychedelics maliciously in the MKUltra project as a means to manipulate people, but that failed miserably. On the other hand, LSD was a pillar of the counterculture of the '60s and pushed many young people to stand against the USA and its war with Vietnam, to the point that Reagan felt forced to start a violent crackdown on psychedelics.
It’s my understanding, from what I read and my own experience, that psychedelics show people a different perspective of the world and of their lives and encourage them to make positive changes. However, trying to nudge one’s experience in your desired direction to make them do something that would go against their interests hasn’t been successful so far.
This goes for classic psychedelics, of course. Many novel ones are currently being developed and tried by various capitalist companies, so we may want to be wary of those. But for the moment, I’m very positive about that class of drugs, and now that they are being democratized again, I’m more worried about a new crackdown if they make people wake up to their terrible life conditions under capitalism, as it did in the '60s.
psychedelics show people a different perspective of the world and of their lives and encourage them to make positive changes
Yes, I just worry that people are going to be nudged towards what, for a lack of better term, I’m calling “palliative” treatment of mental health issues: exercise, time in nature, etc. These are positive changes that will cause improvement in people’s lives, but without doing anything to address the underlying cause. The end result, then, is that people are just more complacent in the system that was/is causing them the suffering in the first place.
But you do make a good point about the 60s counterculture movement, and so I can remain hopeful that maybe it will cause positive change.
