The Historical Crib, the Split Mind and the Will-To-Be

Below, I am posting the excellent article from the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) on the situation of mental health and those who suffer from it.  SR

The Historical Crib, the Split Mind and the Will-To-Be

A discussion meeting was held in Yeovil on June 23, 2007, on the topic of Schizophrenia and “The Necessity for Change” Analysis. The “historical crib” and “the will-to-be” are two important concepts which can help explain the current situation for mental health suffers and other people, and contribute to empowerment.

            The discussion took the form of an exchange of experiences and views between the participants as peers, taking advantage of this opportunity which was inspirational and affirming. The discussion was followed by a piano recital.

            We reprint below the presentation “The Historical Crib, the Split Mind and the Will-To-Be”, given by Rachel Nettleship to open the meeting.

* * *

The word schizophrenia translates to English meaning “split mind”. All those who are said to suffer from schizophrenia are said to have a “split mind”. This means they have two distinct trains of thought occurring at the same time where other people have just one. The second train of thought cuts across the first with insulting language, or negative thoughts or provides a running commentary. In terms of consciousness, this can be seen as anti-conscious thought attacking conscious thought. In this sense it is a more stated example of what is going on in society and what all human beings are faced with when in the historical crib. The historical crib can be defined as the cocoon we are born into in that it holds us in a stagnant pool of misinformation and indoctrinates us with the view that things are as they are and can never be changed. It is the struggle against this cocoon that is seen by the status quo as negative behaviour. The initial step in the struggle against this imposed status quo can be viewed as the will-to-be. For those who have been labelled with the diagnosis of schizophrenia the will-to-be is intensified as they are struggling against a huge onslaught of negative voices that seems to be out of their control. Therefore their will-to-be and self-expression is heeded by the ruling class in an even more negative manner than other people. This striving to be free of their mental suffering is the same struggle we all face to be free of the historical crib. In this sense someone said to be suffering from schizophrenia has equal potential to see things outside of the historical crib and by facing the fact that there is a struggle against this anti-conscious thought, brings to their attention that there is another consciousness or way of being striving to be free.

            The development of human consciousness can be summarised as follows:

1.      Consciousness that there is something that gives the individual easy answers, i.e. the historical crib.

2.      Consciousness that this historical crib, which has been the guardian of being, is now coming into conflict with another force – the will-to-be.

3.      Consciousness that the historical crib is going to fail the individual one day.

4.      Consciousness that the final estrangement with the historical crib is only a matter of time.

            The will-to-be demands a crisis of itself in that it needs to struggle and question the historical crib, to finally release itself from false history and the inhuman ideas and values of the imposed society. For anyone this crisis is seen as negative behaviour not in keeping with social and traditional norms, but for someone said to be suffering from schizophrenia this battle is far more arduous. When schizophrenia goes into crisis it is in the form of a psychotic episode. This is viewed by the status quo as negative behaviour that the person is “extreme” or “ill” and not seen as a crisis brought about by the struggle to be free of the voices, commentary or negative thoughts they are afflicted with. This psychotic episode should be seen as the brain’s way of striving to escape anti-conscious acceptance. Those suffering schizophrenia quite rightly do not want to accept the status quo and like anyone go into crisis. When this occurs those of us labelled with schizophrenia are often hospitalised or overly medicated. What needs to happen is to turn the brain’s rebellion into a rebellion against the fundamentals of their own problems, and the fundamentals of society’s problems with the support of the people and the society.

            It is thought that the causes of schizophrenia are two-thirds genetic and one-third environmental. However, the majority of new cases appear within families with no history of the disease. This suggests that the causes can be sourced to our society and the contradictions it inflicts. If someone is to develop a “split mind”, then under the historical crib must be conflict. Capitalism creates a split mind as it seeks to destroy what is true with anti-conscious acceptance of its rules and norms. Someone who is striving to be free of this dogma may be more vulnerable to a “split mind”. In essence capitalism and the historical crib creates split mind thinking by perpetuating lies and deceit, creating paranoia and distortion of what is real. This is reflected in what is described as paranoid schizophrenia where a person may feel they are being watched or that they are being followed by MI5. It is simply a reflection of the chaos created under an imposed history that does not reflect the people’s reality. This is not to say that there are not fundamental causes to the condition of psychosis, but these are generally the product of the imposed system which perpetuates inhumane treatments like abuse and traumatic experiences. These experiences can be the fundamental issue on which the brain develops psychosis.

            What does the historical crib say about those who are mental health sufferers?

            The historical crib tells those with said “mental illness” that they are the problem in themselves, that they are aggressive and violent, and that they as the problem must be dealt with. The mental health system categorises mental health sufferers into their own label or diagnosis; the media sensationalises the idea that those with said schizophrenia are a danger to society. The drug companies say they need medication and the government says they must be sectioned and locked away. In the historic crib we are told that nothing can change, that this is what is and if we don’t accept it we are “extreme” or “ill”. So-called schizophrenics are told that their suffering is for life. These myths are where there is necessity for change. As regards to being violent, in fact proportionately not only do mental health sufferers commit less violent crime than the rest of the population, but they are more likely to be the victim of crime. As regards to mental health problems being for life, people who are said to suffer schizophrenia as all peoples have always striven to understand their problems and want to actively participate in finding out what can be done, and pro-actively find a way out of their crisis.

            The mental health system and society must treat those suffering from said “schizophrenia” as equals and enable the full participation of these individuals in standing up against their problems and involving and drawing on their own wisdom and experience in creating the subjective conditions for their emancipation from an oppressive illness and oppressive society. In so doing they join the workers, women, national minorities, youth, disabled and other mental health sufferers in ending their marginalisation and becoming part of the movement to end the oppression of all, and indeed ending the “split mind” syndrome that the historical crib imposes. Like the infliction of the negative thoughts that plague those with said schizophrenia the historical crib can only survive because of its built-in confusion and insincerity, but this also forms the basis of its eventual destruction. In this way both the historical crib and the illnesses and inflictions it creates are doomed to fail. What’s left is total consciousness and the realisation that history, like human beings, is a living phenomenon and not some dead force “out there” as it was in the historical crib. History and humanity now becomes something that reflects the various forces of society at work. In this way there is a way out of both personal crisis and the crisis of society, which bear close relationship. Those of us who suffer psychosis or have been diagnosed with such a label as schizophrenia have not only to struggle against the average lies of the historical crib but overcome the barrier of such a label as schizophrenia to believe that we are equal members of society and we can and must change things. Only by becoming part of the struggle for progress in the society can we progress in terms of our own problems. We are inextricably linked to every other person who suffers oppression, and in actively participating in the struggle for a new world we are actively participating in fighting our own barriers too. We must fight for and assert our rights for a social and supportive health service which supports us fully in our road to recovery of our own history, our own mind and our true consciousness.

            Those with so-called schizophrenia are a part of us and reflect our struggles against the confusion and lies, and abuses of the current society. Only by recognising the rights of all to gain freedom from oppression can we create a world where such problems can not only be dealt with but there fundamental causes stopped. Those of us in the condition of psychosis or said schizophrenia must empower ourselves to fully participate in the struggle for a just society in which along with workers, women, national minorities, the disabled and the youth we are at the forefront.

Source: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wdie-07/d07-034.htm

Dear Memnoch,

Dear Memnoch,

A good introduction of the role of the Soviet Union played under the guidance and leadership of Lenin and Stalin can be found in the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) statement “Propaganda for Global Competition is Propaganda for War”.  It won’t answer all your questions about Stalin and the Soviet Union, but it does give a great outline of its role, duty, and responsibility it had in the world. It is an important statement because although it speaks of the Soviet Union, the context of the message is what is happening right now (even if it is from a Canadian perspective).

Propaganda for Global Competition Is Propaganda for War
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2006/D36023.htm#1

Here is also an excerpt from the late Hardial Bains founder and leader of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in 1994:

“Historically, communists have stood at the head of all movements for profound social transformations nationally and internationally and at the head of all movements for enlightenment and it is necessary that they play the same role at this time. It is the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 which put an end to the First World War and led to the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), as the condition for harnessing Russian-chauvinism so as to guarantee the sovereignty of member states. During the 1940s, the Soviet Union and the anti-fascist fighters all over the world were the decisive force which put an end to the Second World War.”
(http://www.mlpc.ca/briefs/19940615foreignpolicy.html)

Investigation into the Soviet Union, Lenin and Stalin requires a lot of work, patience, and perusal of literature and sources(which are not made easily accessible by historians in the service of imperialism). Majority of the time, the historians omit the primary and necessary sources from the public, and the public simply relies on what the historians have to say, without even realizing there is a vast amount of information out there that gives quite another picture of reality.

The point being is not to take things for granted, nor rely on other people’s conclusions (including this one), but to use it as an opportunity to rely on your own research and thinking and draw your own conclusions.

The Soviet Union is often presented by the monopoly press and media where millions died and were imprisoned under the direct guidance of Lenin and Stalin.  Millions did die in the Soviet Union, through revolution, famine, civil war, and the enstranglement of imperialist and fascist powers against the Soviet Union. The historical context of the events must always be known. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution (1917)  in Russia was in response to the brutal nature of Tsarism and to the brutal reality of the First World War. In the First World War (circa 1914-1918), the Tsar led millions of Russians, mostly made up of the peasantry to their deaths in an imperialist war for annexation of other lands and territory. The First World War can be characterize as a global war between contending imperialist powers, known as the Great or Central Powers. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, with support from the Russian people and peasantry, along with many elements of the military, they withdrew Russia from the War, which assisted in ending the First World War. (In the US there was broad resistance to the US entering the war.)Even then however, Soviet socialism and what the Bolsheviks stood for and represented, posed a serious and grave threat to the imperialist powers who had annexed much land, terrority etc.  After the October Revolution, the young new Republic faced a civil war, which resulted in millions of deaths. Many reactionary trends of socialism (such as the Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries etc) within Russia began taking up a stance against the New Republic and collaborated with the White Army who were opposed to socialism in Russia. These groups sought international financing and backing from foreign imperialist powers to smash the new Soviet state, an opportunity that the Imperialist encirclement (The Entente or the Intervention) could not ignore nor refuse. The traitors (for that is what they were) also resorted to terrorizing the countryside and committing atrocities against the people in waging their war of aggression the new Republic and against the popular will of the Soviet people. The Soviet state had to act in defense of the people and continued to strengthen the people’s army, the Red Army. Along with this period of civil war, the new Soviet state also had to face a famine which resulted in many deaths of its citizens.   As the late Mark Jones puts it in his letter to a certain David Johnson, “So Lenin won, because the alternative was not a native, home-grown Russian capitalism; it was colonial plunder, the dismembering and death of a nation. The Civil War was death made visible; the Intervention, when eleven states from Japan to the USA, showed them what to expect if they could not defend themselves. Seven million died, and many of those by the catastrophic mistakes Bolsheviks themselves made, mistakes which Bolshevik indifference made into crimes, as famine came to be seen as one more weapon in the war to defend the Commune, even against its own recalcitrant peasantry. “ (Dear David Johnson)

The “recalcitrant peasantry” Mark Jones is referring to were the rich peasantry, as opposed to the middle and lower peasantry, who enjoyed the exploitation of the lower peasantry and resisted the sovereignty of the Soviet people, especially during harvest season and the distasrous famine that shook the young Republic. They were also known as the kulaks, which monopoly presses make a lot of hoolaboo about, but without context. The monopoly presses go on about how the Soviet state crushed the kulaks who were standing up for their “rights”, when this wasn’t the case at all.  The reality and danger of international imperialism, terrorists, famine, and the scarcity of resources was the situation facing the Soviet people and its leadership. The Soviet state had a role and responsibility to its people and sovereignty. They had to be defended, even in such a situation as this, which could very well mean losing all that they had gain. In a blog on a review of the film “La Commune” one blogger pretty much characterizes the situation that faces majority of countries who have decided to go the way of socialism:

“Several years after the Sandinistas were ousted, Carlos Vilas, an Argentine sociologist and supporter of the revolution, spoke at a meeting in New York. I will never forget how he characterized it. It was like doctors in a delivery room with no electricity during an earthquake. When working people try to take power, they are not only faced with their own inexperience as masters of society, they are faced with the immediate hostility and open sabotage of the old ruling classes.”
(http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/11/05/la-commune/)

A good introduction to this history can be found again from the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in their article commemorating the 89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, 1917
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2006/D36178.htm

A good film on the subject of this period is the 1981 movie Reds starring Warren Beatty, which also provides a window into the problems of the early communist movement in the US in trying to form a party of a new type. I would really like to elaborate more on everything else, but there is simply so much to say, so I will leave you with some reference material to check out for yourself.  Again, please rely on your own thinking and investigation and draw your own conclusions.

* * * * *

Some of the best things I ever read about Stalin comes from sources outside the Soviet Union, sources that actually visited the Soviet Union many times during Stalin’s leadership of the Union. One of them comes from the African-American civil rights and black freedom fighter, W.E.B.DuBois in his euology of Stalin in March 1953. It is relatively short and provides quite another view of Stalin than is commonly portrayed.

W.E.B. Dubois, On Stalin
http://www.mltranslations.org/Miscellaneous/DuBoisJVS.htm
You can also read it at my site as well:
http://soilride.com/duboisStalin.html

I also recommend Reverend Hewlett Johnson, who was a member of the British clergy, who visited the Soviet Union many times in his lifetime, especially in the period of the 1930s where the real danger of fascism was reaching towards a feverish pitch across Europe. I recommend the book “The Soviet Power” by Rev. Hewlett Johnson. It was published in 1940, just before Germany invaded the USSR. Since he was a member of the clergy and represented the religious community, he also had many things to say about religion and socialism drawing his experience from the Soviet Union during the leadership of Stalin, whereas the monopoly presses always say that the Soviet Union and Stalin suppressed and crushed people who were religious, often citing the destruction of the Orthodox Church. I only have one chapter from Hewlett Johnson online concerning religion in the Soviet Union, but it is important:

Religion and Soviet Socialism
Rev. Hewlett Johnson, Love is the Fulfilling of the Law, taken from “The Soviet Power”
http://soilride.com/ReligionSovietSocialism.htm

I consider the late Mark Jone’s essay on Stalin and the madness leading up to the Second World War to be an excellent starting point. It is a lengthy read, but it is a good beginning to understand the period and the events taking place in the Soviet Union and on the international scene.

Stalin, Appeasement, and the Second World War by the late Mark Jones
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htmFinally, for now, I will post the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) links to this period as well.It is also lengthy, but just as important also for the context and for the role the Soviet Union played.Causes and Lessons of the Second World War
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35078.htm#1Supplement:

Act of Military Surrender May 8, 1945 
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35078a.htm#1

The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35078a.htm#2

I hope this helps. Would love to hear your thoughts and comments.Sincerely yours,

SR

Upholding Principles is a Vital Matter of State

The Crisis of Fourth-Generation War (4GW) 

In William Lind’s July 11, 2007 entry “Not Fourth Generation War” [ http://www.defense-and-society.org/lind/lind_7_12_07.htm ] on his Defense and National Interest website, Lind claims that Western culture and therefore society faces a grave threat by not addressing two things: that U.S. and the military itself are 1) not grasping the realities of what in military theory is known as Fourth Generation Warefare (4GW) and 2) not grasping the danger in which, “cultural Marxism” [and those who follow and advocate the Frankfurt School] represent in the United States and Western society. Advocating that Western society and culture must be defended in order to save it, Lind, turns to fascist and racist solutions.

“In larger part, they [national governments, Western states] ignore the reality of 4GW because it contradicts their ideology, commonly known as “multi-culturalism” but actually the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. That ideology says that all the world’s cultures are wonderful, happy, peaceful cultures except Western culture, which is oppressive and evil and must be destroyed. In fact, Western culture is one of only two cultures in human history that has succeeded over millennia (the other is Chinese). 4GW theory warns that we now face a world of cultures in conflict, that we must defend Western culture and that many, perhaps most, other cultures are threats, especially when they flood Western countries with immigrants. Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.” (William S. Lind, Not Fourth Generation War)

What Lind is describing here is bourgeois liberalism and neo-liberalism and the problem with anything bourgeiois, that is the ruling ideology of the ruling class, is that the issue of culture and people can not be seen nor acknoweldged as equal, in the context of a modern definition of what a right means, on the basis of one’s being. All nations, peoples and languages are equal. How best a society guarantees the right to defend the right of equality should be the question put forth under examination, for it is vital matter of state.  It is precisely for this reason that the state, including 4GW theorists themselves for the most part, also reject this ideology.  Bourgeois liberalism, can not recognize the equality of nations and peoples, nor can it defend this principle.  Rather, bourgeois liberalism tries to conceal their contempt for the equality of nations and people through the keyword “toleration”, but never through upholding and defending rights.

Lind also asserts that because Western culture has existed and succeeded over millenia, it has exclusive monopoly on what a culture is and should be.  There is no examination nor effort to understand how cultures come into being in history and society. In the article, the case is made that immigrants should assimilate to the dominant culture, and because they maintain their own culture it poses a serious threat to Western culture.  The demand that they submit and assimilate crosses another principle - that of peoples right to concience.  The main issue here is that of American identity, an identity which is forged from not “western culture”, but from the development of society and arrangements of that society. Unable to recognize these developments and to adapt to them in context of defending and upholding principles, the thinking of fascism is to stop this development by attacking people, which in the end, will utterly fail.  What poses a threat to sovereignty of the U.S. are not immigrants, nor is it other cultures.  What has compromised the sovereignty of the U.S. is monopoly capital, in other words, imperialism, the state in the service of monopoly capitalism. It is time for the new wine to be poured into new bottles, that is to say, another U.S. must be created to uphold and defend the people and guarantee their well-being. In the context of “western states”, or rather the advanced capitalist countries in the world, the same analogy applies and that this task of creating the new nation [the new bottles] is the task of the consciously organized proletariat and people.

The November 2005 article from The Marxist-Leninist is very insightful on the nature of the ruling ideology of many a western state:

“…Today, the ruling ideology takes the form of neo-liberalism, which is fascist ideology. The ruling ideology serves the striving of the most powerful monopolies to dominate all economic, social, cultural and political affairs. Fascist ideology is anti-worker, anti-communist, racist and anti-social. It has replaced scientific argument with sophism and is reintroducing all the discredited notions and concepts of medievalism and clerical obscurantism including even official religious explanations of the origin of human beings and evolution of species.

All of this is aimed at justifying a return to medieval relations of indentured labour, barones regis (barons of the king), fealty and patronage. Collective action to affirm rights are outlawed while forms of banishment and civil death are enacted and made law. All relations are to be between individuals and their master, priest, lord or official who holds the power of dispensing punishment, selling forgiveness (corruption) or conferring positions of power (patronage appointments). In economic and political affairs, it is the concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands where the anointed ones decide and the people must obey with severe measures taken to smash all previous arrangements.

The more a nation and people break free from the ruling ideology and worldview, the more employees denounce the backward notion that the human factor represents a labour cost; the more the workers put themselves at the centre of the economy and politics and at the centre of their nation-building project activating the human factor/social consciousness and encouraging all the people to stand with them, the more the people and nations will prosper and thrive economically, socially and politically. The more the people participate in the full breadth of social life especially political affairs at their workplaces, neighbourhoods, educational centres and seniors homes, the more they participate in taking decisions and carrying them out in the interest of the public good; the more they participate in nation-building, the more they open the door to progress and prepare conditions to move their nations and social economies to the next level of national and social development…” ( http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35192.htm )

On Fourth-Generation Warfare

The theory of Fourth Generation Warfare is interesting, but not at all surprising when we look at the developments of societies since time immemorial and how each generation of warefare also reflected the deep going changes in society itself, economically, politically, and socially.

Echevarria gives a succinct summary of what 4GW theory entails in his article “Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths”:

“In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four generations: 1) the use of massed manpower, 2) firepower, 3) maneuver, and now 4) an evolved form of insurgency that employs all available networks - political, economic, social, military - to convince an oppenent’s decisionmakers that their strategic goals are either unacheivable or too costly.” ( Antulio J. Echevarria II, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub632.pdf )

Along with this, there is currently discussion among the 4GW theorists that another generation of war is emerging. To read more about it, here is Col. T. X. Hamme’s article “Fourth Generation Warefare Evolves, Fifth Emerges” [ http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/pdf/hammes_5gw.pdf ] An interesting article, one in which I would like to address fully at some point. 

Having read various materials on the Fourth-Generation Warfare, most of which are supplied by William S. Lind, I’ve concluded that even in the scope of seeing the problem of waging a struggle [militarily] with those who take up 4GW, what can not be recognized in any of these analysis reports is the principle of the right of nations and people to resistance. For instance, when people resist against U.S imperialism and monopoly capitalism, the ruling class, it’s lackeys and such, have no real way of addressing resistance as a right, nor are they in any position to defend and uphold this principle. Therefore when nations and people resist, this right can not be addressed proper. This right is not addressed by the ruling class, nor is it addressed by the circles of military theorists, such as those who are very cleverly analyzing a phenomenon they have only been able to classify as Fourth Generation Warfare. The main aim however besides this on-going search for a definition of Fourth Generation Warfare is how to defeat the “enemies” who employ it. That is to say, the aim of finding a way to defeat 4GW and the “adversaries” of the so-called “west”, is to refuse and deny the right to resistance of those who take it up.

Lind argues that the state, in the face of a crisis of legitimacy, is unable to come to terms with the facts of 4GW, and the failure to do so, is costing the US in terms of dollars and bodies in its ventures abroad etc. The US military is not on a 4GW-footing, nor is it in a position to understand the strategy and tactics of 4GW, and if it was, and equipped itself to adapt to this environment and situation then western states will be on a much better track in defeating the “enemy.”

Yet the theorists and intelligentsia, including both the bourgeioisie and military, are unable to come to terms with the facts of resistance as excercised by nations and peoples to defend their right to sovereignty, as an excercise of sovereignty itself. One of the major weaknesses of these various trends of military and bourgeois thought is that it is incapable of calling things as they are. As in the cases of the Palestinian and Lebanese people, what is genuinely known as the resistance of a people against occupation and state-sponsored terrorism is called, in one fell stroke, without any discussion nor examination, “terrorist”. Resistance [or rather all that resists or moves is terrorism] is the problem, according to the 4GW theorists, because of the variance of forms it takes that is alien to the tactics and methods of conventional warefare by those who excercise it.

September 11, 2001 was no act of resistance as an excercise of a people. It was an act of terrorism no doubt. Even in such a situtation as this, mechanism and channels have been provided to persue individual criminals and terrorists who commit crimes such as these. The failure of the U.S. and the ruling class to excercise this right, and instead opted to goto war to sort the matter out against entire nations and peoples is the problem and creates an atmosphere in which individuals and groups, isolated from the mass number of people, to commit more crimes of terrorism unleashed against other people and states, especially the “western states”.

Again, the problem of the military, is not the resistance nor how a people take up that resistance, but the state in which the military is the physical arm. Not just any state, but an imperialist state, that is to say, a state in the name of defending a country and nation yet engaged in empire-building. It is the U.S. state that has failed militarily in Iraq, in Afghanistan, wherever they go, precisely because the principle of the right of nations to self-determination is not upheld nor is it defended. Just as the U.S. state has failed abroad, it has failed internally, especially in the case of Hurricane Katrina and the sealed fate of the people of New Orleans under the dictate of monopoly capital rule. Imperialism is the biggest threat to all nations and peoples and the fight against imperialism is the order of the day.

Another U.S. is necessary!