schizophrenia is not a mental illness

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
schizophrenia is not a mental illness
Printer-friendly version

any thoughts fred ?

sorry if this is inappropriate etc. :-)

About schizophrenia. Why me

About schizophrenia. Why me lem?  D'you think I am? I don't know anything about it except I recall  that R.D.Laing wrote a lot about it in the 60's saying it wasn't strictly an illness and then got it himself. (Is it something you "get" like a sore throat or arthritis which I have and frequently think is really all psychological, by which I mean is a sickness brought on largely by mental distress, or avoidance of life, acknowledged or other wise, conscious or not. 


Anyway. Speaking as someone who is largely  ignorant of the subject, I would guess schizophrenia is mainly a product of living in class society, which is to say nothing much. But this particular class society under which we all suffer, perhaps some more than others, perhaps not - maybe everybody suffers something, but the suffering manifests itself in peculiar ways -  specialises in the production of conditions called "stress" and the majority of people are always taking pills for something or other, not always named, and not always describable in words.  It's all stress and nerves. This non-describable thing  could  be called "unhappiness" or "disquiet".  Or anxiety, fear of something unnamed and even unknown. Not knowing exactly what it is is the major and unpleasant symptom and the constant worry that something unpleasant and nasty  is about to happen but we don't know what it is. The gnawing tension of not knowing what'll happen next and what's round the corner.  Theres no stability anywhere and you can't really depend on anybody or anything, but you're  just stuck out there on your own and it can be frightening. Better not to think  about it. Don't wake up in the middle of the night and start thinking about it. That way you'll go crazy.

Getting a disease like cancer or TB that actually has a name and can be diagnosed and identified with vigorous medical confidence, and even treated, is in a way a relief, because at least you know now what's wrong with you. Or do you really? But knowing is better than not knowing. Or is it? There's so much uncertainty in everyday life. There are lots of things that it's better not to know about.  The TV news just makes things worse. But cancer is very scary.  It's as if all your worries have got embodied in hard, ugly lumps of flesh growing disorderly and at great speed all over the place inside. And if this isn't terrifying in itself,  treatment  can be as ghastly the illness.

Cancer is the perfected disease for capitalist society.  It's growth gone crazy and turned destructive. It's your physical body turned against itself. It's like self hate. It's your body at war and in despair at ever finding any escape from an unbearable lonely life in a society of alienated beings, where everyone is frightened of everyone else and even of being alive though it has to be better than dying. 

But I think sometimes we get a sort of choice in the escape illnesses we go for unconsciously. That many people have troubled minds to go with or in place of troubled bodies shouldn't surprise anyone. After all capitalism is schizoid itself. It seperates production from consumption with the massive interruption called exchange, which is beyond human control. It turns the human passion for doing things into a package called labour power, which  you are forced to put up for sale,  like it or not. And if you can't sell it for whatever reason, it'll be regarded as your fault alone and you will be ostracised and despised, while starving  to death on a pittance. 

Is this how you expected me to reply lem?  It isn't a very nice post I know, but you did prod and probe. But how about you? Do you think there's such a thing as mental illness? Or, to turn it round, how much illness is actually mental, and aggravated grossly by the conditions in which we live and suffer? 

About schizophrenia. Why me

double post deleted

About schizophrenia. Why me

triple post deleted

oh i only asked you because i

oh i only asked you because i feel quite incapacitated.

i understand that you are physically so ? are you offended by the question

i think chronic fear,

i think chronic fear, sadness, etc. can legitimately be called "illnesses", i.e. be classified alongside physical ones because they are IMHO not the fault of the person who suffers.

though the obvious fact that yes social conditions can even (literally) create these (chronic) states does complicate that. is poverty an "illness"? no it can't be - i suppose it isn't so because poverty isn't something that belongs to us in quite the same way (at least, yet !).

i think schizophrenia isn't a mental illness, not because it has +ve aspects (i can't think of any) or because it is merely social and not a quality of a person (you can't steal someone's psychosis, you treat it - slowly, purposively), or that it is the fault of the schizophrenic; i think it isn't because it so invasively belongs to the person that it is more like an intellectual deficit.

of course it isn't that literally (you don't have to be stupid) but unlike something like depression it is IMHO a tendency that cannot be done away with. of course some people live their whole lives with depression, no happy days, but that's anomolous it seems. and i would probbaly say the same about lifelong unremitting depression - it is an an (accidental) aspect of you.

i suppose it's a deficit,

i suppose it's a deficit, whether or not we are defeated

i suppose i feel like you are

i suppose i feel like you are trying to undermine me, but i literally have no idea what you are trying to undermine, so no i'm not insulted hah 




i'm not complaining! i just don't understand.. anyway, sorry i made so many posts

the invisible worm

Hi lem. I am glad you're  not insulted - why should you be? - and I'm certainly not trying to undermine you. 

But if there is a really serious point to my earlier post then it goes something like this. 

As Marx explained. Production IS consumption and consumption IS production.  The two are inseparable and intertwined as a life giving force. But then along comes that great invention by the bourgeoisie called EXCHANGE. This shatters  the happy life enhancing relationship of consumption and production like an awful coitus interruptus,  or like Blake's "invisible worm" that flies in the night and plunders the bed of crimson joy which belongs to the rose. (this is an inexact  quote.) 

What follows the interruption of the joyous and happy relationship of production and consumption - the bed of crimson joy - and its temporary destruction at the hands of unhealthy and artificially imposed bourgeois relations of production is well known. It's capitalism: with all its ills, misery, alienation, destructive powers and so on. 

The invisible worm is EXCHANGE. It is damaging and unhealthy. In shattering the exquisite relationship between production and consumption it brings  an ideological schizophrenia into the very heart of society. And this is a force which works contrary to that of life itself. It tends towards the defeat of life. 

Laing etc

I have read some of Laing's work. He is not at fashionable today and certainly some of his 'libertarian' treatments seem very questionable, but there seems to me to be an important truth in his insistance that schizophrenia and similar maladies can't be reduced to their physiological components (which logially imply a purely physiological treatment, ie mind-numbing medicines) but must be understood as a product of alienated social relations - and that schizoid fantasies and withdrawal can often be a 'sane' reaction to an impossiblly contradictory knot of social conflicts, and indeed to a basically insane social order. 

Madness in the brain, or in society?

Alf wrote:

...but there seems to me to be an important truth in his insistance that schizophrenia and similar maladies can't be reduced to their physiological components (which logially imply a purely physiological treatment, ie mind-numbing medicines) but must be understood as a product of alienated social relations - and that schizoid fantasies and withdrawal can often be a 'sane' reaction to an impossiblly contradictory knot of social conflicts, and indeed to a basically insane social order. 

I'd just like to support Alf's point about the difference between:

'madness' as a biological, individual "thing", that would be treated 'materially', by drugs or by lobotomy, to physically alter or remove the 'damaged piece of a human';

and, 'madness' as a social, relational "thing", that would be treated 'ideally-materially', by altering the socio-economic relationships that produce the 'damaged social consciousness of a human'.

The former is a historical and social product of the bourgeoisie's ideology that "we're all individuals", whereas the source of the latter is in a 'social ideology', like Communism.

One way to picture the difference between these appoaches, is to ask, given a photo of two faces, between which two ears would one would place an 'X' to denote where 'mind' lies?

Those of a bourgeois bent would place an 'X' on each face, between the two ears of each individual. So, two 'X's on the photo.

The Communist would place one 'X', and one 'X' only, between the adjacent ears of the two workers.

That is, the 'X' would be in empty space, which would be anathema to individualists who insist 'mind=brain', because the 'X' represents a social relationship which requires a 'theory' to observe.

Finally, because we situate most 'madness' in fractured, damaged, or absent social relationships, our solutions are not drugs or lobotomies (or isolation of 'individuals' in asylums), but in reintegrating, repairing or, for some, creating for the first time, the relationships necessary to all humans for their collective sanity.

i think people on ESA can be

i think people on ESA can be working class.

what do you think ?

I'm pretty sure that

Hi lem_

Anyone on ESA for whatever reason has surely had to face all manner of State imposed means ,mind, muscle, legs, arms. eye,  tests - which are ever more stringent as the State attacks the working class.

I have never had to undergo such examination but I would think it to be distastefully inhuman reeking of State control and quite humiliating.

One's 'background' is bureaucratically a pretty flakily defined socio-economic category, but even by those criteria , ESA applicants are surely de facto from the non-exploiting classes and the working class.

One's background isn't one's allegiance. I am not working class by definition. I am for the working class by consciousness and ... in a way conscience even.

Oppression is oppression. The oppressors are self -righteous. The ruling class will as far as it can pursue and scrutininse any person 'potential-labour-power-unit'  who for whatever reason, does not meet their self-serving parameters of 'normal functioning'. Sort of

 'What do you mean you're too ill/ old/bereaved/traumatised to produce surplus value, earn money, pay us tax?'

I'll try to come back on other points which lead from this: re the politics of medicine (and its 'science') which - like all things in capitalist mode -demonstrates unreconcilable contradictions.


I thought and iPad confirms

I thought and iPad confirms that ESA was the European Space Agency but it is clearly something else much nastier as well.  

But AS you're back!  I missed you. So welcome back. (It's usually Alf who welcomes comrades back, but I hope he will excuse my presumption this once?) 

Reply to comrade AS

Dear Comrade

I would like to support your post and make a few comments..

The history of attempts to push workers off ESA is a long one, it's being going on for several years. For example, the last Labour government also introduced 'tests' to push workers off Incapacity Benefit via the notorious French medical company - ATOS. They provided extremely stringent medical examinations which

(continuation of last post,

(continuation of last post, I'm a Luddite with the new technology comrades!)

threw hundreds off IB, the appeal system was even more stringent, with practically no chance of any reversal, talking to workers here in Liverpool who had been before these panels, there was a strong feeling that a quota system was being operated, that the doctors were 'bent' getting payments for people they threw off benefits and the most indiginent refrain of all....."Thatcher put us on IB to massage the unemployment figures, now these bastards want to throw us off the few extra bob we get"

It's completly correct as AS says that the whole process is humilating in the extreme, also when talking to older workers they make the comparison with the 1930's with the means tests, the old dole schools etc, all these measures we can see in embrio with the new government Spending Review.

Only this is not the 30's the working class is not defeated and we still have to fight!


A.Simpleton wrote: One's

A.Simpleton wrote:
One's background isn't one's allegiance. I am not working class by definition. I am for the working class by consciousness and ... in a way conscience even.

An intriguing quote and unusual use of "allegiance"!  Does the working class require one's allegiance or not rather some   different  type of commitment, like a commitment to working class struggle on the ground?

 And thinking about "I am for the working class by consciousness.." What does this mean?  Should someone  not rather say: I recognise the consciousness I have as being working class.  Or: I understand that consciousness, in the sense of class consciousness, is a product of working class life and the place workers occupy in an exploitative society, which can push them into a political critique which in turn can produce class consciousness. Because of this understanding, and my own realisation of the revolutionary force for change that this class consciousness actually is, I now feel and recognise  it in myself, and have come to identify myself with it because it's right. 

Someone else might say: I am for the working class ideologically though not politically. (This is nonsensical.) Or: I am for the working class in theory.  (Very academic this. Like Milliband the father.) But I don't think you can say I am for the working class "by consciousness".  You might say: I know what working class consciousness is, but I haven't got it, have never experienced it and consider it just another type of ideology. This being the case, the statement that the speaker "knows" what working class consciousness is, is just not true. He thinks he knows but he doesn't. Like Milliband the father. 

Please excuse me for going on about this comrade AS, I have no wish to spoil your return. But your apparently casual confession has disturbed my slumbers.  And I appreciate your are not normally lax with language.  

So. To go on a little more. Your reference to being for the class via "conscience". Someone might say: "I feel incredibly sorry for the working class, they do all the work and get all the suffering none of the rewards."  This person is expressing a guilty conscience towards the class.  (Are consciences always referred to as being "guilty"? Or is it possible to have a conscience that's pure and unsullied?  I don't know the answer.  Maybe consciences in general are the property of the bourgeoisie?) But a guilty conscience with regard to the class wouldn't necessarily lead to a revolutionary consciousness,  only to a passion for reform and a need "to do good works". 

I will leave it here AS.  But thank you for raising such a provocative issue. 


Greetings Fred

[A Defender of The Proletariat is at his post. A Simpleton approaches]    

D.O.P :    O, Vassal, Miscreant ! Hear me!                                                                                            On thine 'allegiance', hear me!



Unusual use?  well... yes that you mention it,. it would have been even in feudal times: to declare allegiance to the oppressed class of serfs, vassals, villeins, would be a contradiction in and of terms and possibly a double positive making its opposite.

If I had known that such uncharacteristic brevity would get me in this much trouble I would have gone on for several pages ahahaha.

It was by way of a response to 'I think people on Employment and Support Allowance (i.e they are unable to work/ fully/temporarily whatever) can be working class.' As you know 'What constitutes The Class' and the vital associated debates re: class consciousness have had hundreds of contributions - some vitriolic - and hundreds of thousands of views on the forum. Amongst these, questions about 'the credentials' -as it were- of A.N. Other or an Organisation. That's another two threads at least.

Without getting too semantic: is not allegiance synonymous with loyalty and is not the following a fair definition:

loyalty {n}  a practical disposition to persist in an intrinsically valued associational attachment, which involves a potentially costly commitment to secure or at least not to jeopardize the interests or well-being of the object of loyalty. An association that we value for its own sake and which we come to identify as ours . 

'I am for the working class' :'by consciousness' of

er... hmmm....would adding a long list of utterly correct positions, with copious selfies from the picket lines make it mean any more? 

Am I Ed Milliband..... oh god ah! ...  oh no  ...maybe his dad knows King Lear.. 



The workers know

Thanks for your comments Melmoth.

The workers do know.

Although broader analysis of class positions from the international point of view may suggest a stalemate - in the sense of neither class being able to carry through its agenda, time and time again in this or that specific confrontation between the state and the working class, show that the working class does not just lie down mystified.

Its historical experience has always been and its continuing daily experience is still marked by: now you're hired now you're fired: we promise we will ....ah sorry we 'can't' after all: if you are the victim of an industrial accident you can claim..... ah well you could have but the 'guidelines' have changed.

It still has a clear perception of the actuality: a deliberate state fob off using other agencies as accomplices, with intent to deceive. We may not be able to fight back right now but we are not deceived.

And that perception is shared. I don't feel it is just idle romanticism to detect, a solidarity even in dismissal - as it were.

The distateful indignity of it having eerie echoes of this report of a slave auction from Savannah Georgia1859: 

'The auctioneer brought up Joshua's Molly and family. He announced that Molly insisted that she was lame in her left foot, and perversely would walk lame, although, for his part, he did not believe a word of it.

He had caused her to be examined by an eminent physician in Savannah, which medical light had declared that Joshua's Molly was not lame, but was only shamming. However, the gentlemen must judge for themselves and bid accordingly.

So Molly was put through her paces, and compelled to trot up and down along the stage, to go up and down the steps, and to exercise her feet in various ways, but always with the same result, the left foot would be lame. She was finally sold for $695. [equivalent to approximately $15,300 in today's dollars]

Whether she really was lame or not, no one knows but herself, but it must be remembered that to a slave a lameness, or anything that decreases his market value, is a thing to be rejoiced over.

A man in the prime of life, worth $1,600 [equivalent to approximately $35,200 in today's dollars] or thereabouts, can have little hope of ever being able, by any little savings of his own, to purchase his liberty.

But, let him have a rupture, or lose a limb, or sustain any other injury that renders him of much less service to his owner, and reduces his value to $300 or $400, and he may hope to accumulate that sum, and eventually to purchase his liberty.

Freedom without health is infinitely sweeter than health without freedom.

Eventually of course and alas, that 'freedom' was merely the 'freedom' to be a wage slave building the Mississipi Levee.....on $2.50 day : most of which was payed back to the boss in rent for your tent etc.- like the miners in the terraces owned by their bourgeois overlords

AS (pardon the digression) 


Ideology again

LBird asserts that communism is a social ideology. He puts social ideology in scare marks. Well communism is certainly social but IT ISNT AN IDEOLOGY and never has been, never was, and never will be. Communism and class consciousness constitute in fact THE NEGATION  of ideology just as communism and class consciousness are the negation of all the other crap the bourgeoisie and all ruling exploitative classes rely on to hide what they're up to. 

One of the earlier and vital insights of those great working class pioneers Marx and Engels was to explain what ideology was and how it was used. They declared it to be "a false consciousness" - actually we've been through all this before LBird and Alf even provided the relevant quote - but you persist with your mistaken view that the word "ideology" is okay for communists to use as a synonym for consciousness despite all this. But it isn't. It's the opposite of consciousness! 

I think you were once mistakenly affiliated to some leftist bourgeois political grouping, which you eventually saw through.  They doubtless used the term ideology whenever  possible because it sounds kind of intellectual, complicated, up-to-date and even scientific. But leftists are there to confuse the working class and as far as ideology versus consciousness goes they appear sadly to have hit the mark with you, and ideology wins hands down. 

For leftists and leftism communism is of course an ideology! Leftists are bourgeois in their inner core, and talk about communism-as -ideology non-stop because the last thing they want is for workers to develop their class consciousness, see through ideology as phoney shit, and get round finally to challenging the capitalist system based on a class consciousness of what capitalism is and the role of ideology within it.    

AS has pointed out in the post but one above this, the importance of holding "utterly correct positions" if you are a communist. (Holding utterly correct positions is something leftists in particular are good at and use for their own nefarious purposes.)  For myself I would have thought  "correct positions" took second place to a fully aware class consciousness. But never mind. So. Assuming holding correct positions is all that counts then might I suggest LBird that you abandon the word ideology altogether when referring to the working class and it's consciousness and use it only in reference to the bourgeoisie, their lies and hypocrisy, and the unfortunate effect this has on individual workers still trapped inside their isolated brains, where they are subject to the constant bombardment of bourgeois ideology. 

Bombardment by 'matter'

Fred wrote:

One of the earlier and vital insights of those great working class pioneers Marx and Engels was to explain what ideology was and how it was used. They declared it to be "a false consciousness" - actually we've been through all this before LBird and Alf even provided the relevant quote - but you persist with your mistaken view that the word "ideology" is okay for communists to use as a synonym for consciousness despite all this. But it isn't. It's the opposite of consciousness!

.... might I suggest LBird that you abandon the word ideology altogether when referring to the working class and it's consciousness and use it only in reference to the bourgeoisie, their lies and hypocrisy, and the unfortunate effect this has on individual workers still trapped inside their isolated brains, where they are subject to the constant bombardment of bourgeois ideology. 

As you say, Fred, we provided the 'relevant quote' - which showed that Engels, and not Marx, used the term 'false consciousness'.

So, you're wrong - 'they' didn't 'declare it', at all.

This is what I mean by 'ideology' - no amount of philological evidence will shake your  'ideological belief' in the 19th century unity of 'Marx-Engels'.

They were two thinkers, with often proveably different ideas about 'materialism'.

In fact, I think that I've shown that Engels adopted a 'bourgeois ideology' in 'materialism', that Marx thought he had unified with 'idealism', with his theory of 'theory and practice' which changes the world.

'Matter', as a starting point, can't be 'changed'. This ideology, which saturates the best activists in the working class, is a 19th century bourgeois ideology. We are 'constantly bombarded' with it, as you say.

Ah..wrong impression.

More laxity of perhaps this time.

I'm obviously not match fit :@{ when you asked 'what do I mean?  I thought well what I said: and perhaps rather blockheadedly .. surely Fred knows where I'm coming from -ish.

I must try join up the dots better.

I felt I had been delivered a 'Halt who goes there' -  in most comradely form of course. Where were my 'credentials' as it were :@- I can't get my head round the 'credentials' stuff which doesn't mean disparegement. And the 'utterly correct positions' was ironic if not - to my chagrin - sarcastic.

There are vital unchanging core things in Marx. There is a class line, but re: the arms locked in the class wrestling match and flying through time: positions change: nothing is ever 'correct' or at least not for long and 'utterly correct' is a ghastly tautology..

The growing, emergence of the consciousness of the Class for itself, its consciousness that it has the potential to 'elect itself' and breach one then another of the imprisoning dams that hold back the creative torrent of real life is in deed the sine qua non to be striven for.

If you'll pardon a slightly facetious sign off: if a c'rade states (for clarity) I am not a member of the ICC,I am a sympathiser does that mean they arrive with tea and biscuits, stroke Alf on the head and go 'there, there, never mind' ?



Clause 14 c

Following on from the comments re: physical/financial means testing and the way the State intimidates and humiliates ex-workers, non-workers, less 'able' workers by hoop jumping tests:

I learn that in the U.S. an old statute of 1938 (note the year) the'Fair Labour Act' (? is that right U.S posters please correct me), contains a Clause 14 c ,which  legally allows employers to pay far less than a minimum wage to - say - someone who is blind.

In fact it seems that it has reached the point where - like the intern issue - they can pay $0.00 for work - the pretense being that you are getting 'free training'.

A blind American woman explained the 'test': a sighted worker is given -say- 100 tops to put on pens and timed: then the blind worker is given the same task and timed: if it took her three times as long then the clause says the employer is 'entitled' to pay her one third as much.

I am only guessing this, but I presume that - 70 years after this law was passed - just to get the opportunity to eventually sell one's labour power tends to force the disabled to work for nothing and 'practice' - which might indeed result in them doing better in a similar future test but not any dissimilar one.

Another obscenity and attack on benefits, the living wage

That is if my understanding is correct. Is this a Federal Law or can County Courts uphold or dismiss? I don't doubt it is being contested. What's the story.



thanks for the lively

thanks for the lively thread.

LBird - just to say RE engels: if marx had deep reservations about the idea of "false consciousness" he would've said at least privately! i actually think that suggesting otherwise is indicative of mute acceptance of bourgeois (academic) thinking.

anyway the idea of "false consciousness" has to be assessed not just taken up (or rejected) uncritically.

i find the idea that workers can't be ideologically conned, obnoxious in the extreme tbh.

are you speaking with me on

are you speaking with me on any thread LBird ?

populism without communism seems pretty frightening.


of course it takes different forms.

sorry for posting so much if

sorry for posting so much if anyone wants me to stop ...


but, i think engels may have been a little premature but the idea is basically sound. if capital is decadent then surely workers can be wrong about the chances of communism. likewise, if capital is decaying (is the word) then maybe even outside times of crisis.

i think capital is decaying tbh - that if we look at the financial crisis that is so profoundly disturbing structural issues there.

Back to the original

Back to the original post.

The following contribution is not for the ICC, let's not get me started on why people shouldn't be posting here. Instead, I worry about individuals who may or may not have read this thread and figure it may or may not be a good idea to continue or stop any medication they may or may not be on.

Schizophrenia, as well as other delusional, paranoiac, and hallucination-featuring disorders have been around since as long as humanity has, long before even the concept of alienated social relations were even considered a problem the way it is today.

Basically, we can't reduce mental disease to being reactive to dysfunctional social stimuli, nor can we reduce it necessarily to dysfunctional mental processes.

You're not wrong to make these correlations, however.

A prime example is Multiple Personality Disorder, which has become so controversial that many psychologists are trying to rebrand it as Dissociative Identity Disorder and pare away this idea of legitimate personalities existing in a single person. Basically, it's widely considered in medical circles that MPD doesn't really exist as a true form mental disorder, but it's more like a pseudo-illness brought on by other neuroses and stressors.

So you're on the right track, but schizophrenia and schizoform disorders are not part of the social dysfunction compendium.

There's of course the natural line of questioning about how far back this primitive communism perhaps? Not necessarily a pre-class society, but more along the lines of societies whose cultural models did not emphasize or even differentiate social and individual integration. That is to say, the individual was considered a micro reflection on the macro scale.

But if you're looking specifically for hunter-gatherer tribes evidencing schizophrenia and delusional disorders, just check out any of the works by ancient medics and doctors.

Here's something that goes back to Ancient Greece:

According to this website, the idea of madness that invoked delusions, hallucinations, inordinate moods and behavior was known well before modern medicine. While these do focus on more structured ancient societies than hunter-gatherer tribes, it does point to a biological rather than social precedence.

And here's a resource that looks into schizophrenia (and more broadly, illnesses with a delusion/hallucination presentation) among a global cultural perspective, which runs down with the conclusion that it's not a socially constructed but an organic disease. (I brought up MPD before, but they also mention bulimia as a modern Western disease, which is also born out by other researchers.)

thanks for the sentiment and

thanks for the sentiment and clarity jamal.

i don't think people with schizophrenia take meds cos they think they're unwell, but cos people they care about do.

i suppose that the truth is somewhere inbetween.

i have terrible attention

i have terrible attention defecit problems. some days are better than others.

i've been medicating since my late teens, but only on the really bad days. i think certain meds can without a doubt help alleviate symptoms and some days that's exactly what you need. i've learned however you have to be super careful what meds you're taking, shop around. also the lower the dosage the better. the prescribed amounts in my experience are almost always too much. i want clarity without losing what makes me, me.

diet for me has been the most important factor. i try my best to stick to a modified paleo...mostly veggies and meat, NO grain, no carbs, no sugar and very little dairy. i've learned being hungry literally turns your brain chemistry into that of a meth addict.

best of luck to anyone out there reading this.

Short post on comrade Jamal

Dear Comrade

Very simply, your post on your condition/Diet was very moving, believe me comrade. All my solidarity, all the very best to you, as they say up here in the North of England - "keep at it Lad!" 


:-) i wonder if communist


i wonder if communist life would cure most of the people who suffer from schizophrenia. i absolutely agree that the world is insane - and maybe would give anything for a time when just a single thing really made sense.

In response to post 27 above.

In response to post 27 above. Why shouldn't people be posting here Jamal?

i suppose that Jamal dislikes

i suppose that Jamal dislikes the ICC rather than assuming (wrongly) they are reactionaries.

i can relate in as much as i feel the same way about anarchists - but in all honestly i really do dislike a lot of anarchists haha.

(No subject)


wait, is planet class

wait, is planet class struggle the_earth :-)

in their (its?) defence, the icc IMHO take it all very seriously - including the current (boom tish) quite limited role that militants can take.

i think as far as groups go (i.e. to the exclusion of being an individual) they do a good job. i.e. that individuals might be better set to engage in more explicit class struggle.

from my experience of struggle (and i wouldn't include my "sanity" in that hahaha. i.e. at work) it's really a quasi moral thing. i.e. that without a party structure, solidarity is - well it's very important but it appears as something more llved than it is with the ICC.

so in conclusion: the ICC may not struggle with vital force, but then maybe they [ok: and others] struggle to the blood... i suppose communism is the heart i dunno ? stick around jamal IMHO :-)





ha i just bumped this silly

ha i just bumped this silly thread cos i was thinking of the absurdity of a place where (serious) mental illness wasn't a (serious) disadvantage in life.

hah just so much that i have no idea what that sentence means !!!