[I do not see an option to add flair?]

[CA ASW]

Probably most of the people in this sub follow a few or more social media psychotherapist influencers. We might do this to get some quick ideas or simply gauge what the pop psychology world is currently talking about so that we can dispel misinterpretations with our clients. Of course, this medium is so brief and surface-level that it can't possibly convey complex psychological topics in a robust enough way to be very useful. In recent years, may of these influencers have leaned into progressive politics as part of their brand, in order to appear more accommodating to marginalized communities, more approachable to the layman, or otherwise trustworthy. However, this is simply another marketing tactic that cannot be divorced from capitalism writ large.

This morning I stumbled upon one of these influencers - a person of marginalized identity that preaches some vague neo-left political signalling and its accompanying lexicon, topical subject matter, and penchant for punchy quips. The influencer was lamenting his contradictory feeling about his plans to expand his private practice into a group practice in which he would employ associate therapists, even though he recognizes the system in which associates are severely exploited is unjust. He expressed this as an unfortunate inevitability that he should be put in such an inescapable situation so he was setting up a crowdsourcing campaign for low income clients to pay and maybe, if I'm understanding correctly to pay his associates a bit more.

I commented that he was making the voluntary choice to take on such a role as an exploiter as a matter of fact, not of opinion and that perhaps instead he could set up his practice as a cooperative in which the workers are also co-owners that all share in the profit of the practice and make consensus decisions regarding reinvestment. His response was to immediately block me.

I bring this story up because it speaks to a wider misconception about left politics. One can embody as many marginalized identities as they identify with, speak the language of accessibility, have a demeanor of approachability, seem knowledgeable about history and current systems that can affect mental health but still voluntarily become part of the problem they claim to be against. With the right amount of effort, most LCSW's can make a living wage. Of course, it would increase their salary to employ associates but it is not necessary to get by, or even make a handsome income.

Being a business owner that extracts part of the labor value from an employee's labor makes someone a capitalist. Nobody forces them too. They carry on the cycle of exploitation and in this case - the cycle they preach that they are against daily in a public forum to increase their potential client pool. In fact, I'd argue that psychotherapist influencers almost have to be addicted to external validation to streamline their online presence and ensure their metrics are yielding the highest results. This sullies content presented because it is not presented as objective findings through something like a peer-reviewed hypothesis; it is presented as fact when it is oftentimes personal opinion presented as consensus of the psychology community.

I do not believe in purity tests but I do believe in definitions. Anti-capitalism does not involve voluntary capitalists proclaiming their guilt but continuing their exploitation. It involves the cessation of these systems and replacing them with better systems that have their own means-tested history.

Do any of you have thoughts on this topic?

tl;dr - Therapist influencers give me the ick and most are full of sh*t, especially the ones that signal left-of-center political positioning.

Originally posted by u/Jeremy-O-Toole on Reddit.

Top comment by u/Co-op_Therapist

I agree so much with your critiques here.

I'm planning on leaving the agency I'm part of in about a year and starting a co-op for exactly the reasons you mention. I am excited at the thought of providing clinical supervision and supporting new therapists, but I have zero desire to be anyone's boss. I want all of us together to see exactly what money has come in, what the rent costs, the EHR, insurance, etc. and when we start making more funds deciding what to invest in the business vs. what to pay out as bonuses.

Because I have looked at the sorts of things that any new agency owner would also look at my social media as are full of "how I make over 200k a year by owning a group practice and only working 3 days a week" ads that just make me feel disgusted with whichever alleged therapist is in the ad. I can argue that it's bullshit when insurance companies (cough, Cigna) don't pay us what our time is worth without thinking it is ok to make up the difference by exploiting someone straight out of grad school.

Hi all,

I had posted here a few weeks back about making this video, and here is the finished product! Got a lot of great responses and people from here reaching out. The video tries to give a history of the "chemical imbalance theory", why it's wrong, and then explores criticism of the theory from a critical psychiatric perspective.

Hope y'all enjoy.

Originally posted by u/Racker150 on Reddit.

Top comment by u/Friendly_Nerd

Disclaimer: I haven’t watched the video because i am out of the house.

I feel like the “chemical imbalance” idea is reductive and removes agency. Sure, maybe it’s like that for some people, but we really can’t prove it for anyone yet. I feel that it’s a convenient justification to just put people on antidepressants and forget about further treatment. It encourages people to view themselves as unfixable when they simply may not have found the right treatment or perspective yet.

Plus it stinks of biological reductionism to me which I have a personal beef with.

Originally posted by u/CleanAnimator4899 on Reddit.

Top comment by u/obliviousresearcher

I am reading this right now! I would love to form a book club just to discuss this book.

I will say, I am finding it to be a difficult read, but only because my reading muscle hasn't been exercised in a while.

If anyone else is struggling to read, I would recommend listening to this interview of Lara Sheehi on Breakthrough news.

This interview brought me immense hope and I immediately sought out the book to read.

https://youtu.be/K1xD4hFyu1s?is=k4db81bb5NZB0oE6

Hi everyone, I’d like to ask a somewhat delicate question. I hope I can frame it properly, without offending anyone.

As therapists, how do you handle situations where a patient’s behaviors, values, or relational style clash with your own values or with what you consider “healthy” or “appropriate”?

I’m not referring to clear cases of abuse, human rights violations or illegal behavior, but to more subtle, culturally rooted differences.

For example:

• A patient who has a very direct, blunt, or even crude communication style that feels normal and respectful to them, but can come across as aggressive or invalidating to you.

• Very close and interdependent family relationships (by choice, not coercion), which in your framework might be interpreted as “enmeshment”, codipendency or poor boundaries.

• Values related to family loyalty, respect for elders, or more traditional gender roles that conflict with the strong emphasis on individual autonomy and rigid boundaries often taught in therapy.

In these cases, how do you distinguish between: What is objectively problematic or harmful, and what is simply different from your own culture or personal values?

And how do you manage the risk of unintentionally imposing your own cultural and therapeutic framework on the patient?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experience or way of thinking about these situations.

Originally posted by u/That-Pineapple3866 on Reddit.

Top comment by u/WingsOfTin

What helps me the most is maintaining a sense of humility.

I'm not the client, I'm not living their life, they are a wholly independent being who gets to decide how they are living out their time here on earth.

You can always query and point out potential limitations or costs to them of these patterns, but the client themselves needs to actually have a desire for these patterns/outcomes to be different.

r/psychotheraphyleftist

Psychologys solutions may work, but for complexer problems they are way too simple.

Most Therapists are not being educated at university in culture, society, patriachary, raceism, history, hierachy, outcasted subgroups and the overall structure of society. Psychology and mental health are in danger to become the priests of the industrial system.

How can a problem, that was caused by the outer world, and caused in the inner world of a person, need to be "fixed" by "fixing" the person. It's like the same person who put a bandage on you, forces you to play football with a broken leg.

That results in generalized problems. By the lack of understanding society, the combination of the differnent factors, which caused the issue, will never be fully understood nor fixed.

Theraphists and Psychiatrists have the abilty to emphatise with the clients words, inform them about individual human behaviour, analyze theier current emotions and state of mind, but when it comes to the way the world spins, theier own experieneces may be the only source of information.

It is physically imposible to understand each situation, without deeper insight into society. It's nature that humans can not emphasis with a person, who is socialized so differently than us, in our society. There is no natural understanding for the person infront of you, if theier culture is unfamiliar. Understanding does not just emerge with emphathy. Understanding needs insight.

Also significant is the impact of attempted empathy on only the client. Most people don't want to be judged by one another, even your own theraphist could think of you as "a bad person". It feels best to avoid faceing our own behaviour, and focus on others wrongdoings.

In theraphy conflicts are just one sided perspectives, which mostly result in break-up or communication. The theraphists evaluation of the other persons behaviour may cause deep resentment, frustration, doubt, false confirmation as well as conditioning certain behaviours the theraphist may not even know of.

For example imagen a conflict between two individuals. Both tell theier conflict to eaches own theraphist, but both leave out their own wrong doings. They will just feel confirmed in themselfs, lack selfreflection and start blameing each other.

In summery modern psychology does not teach the Client how to create a beautifull life in connection to each other, instead it teaches people to adjust into a system that was made to make as much profit from them as much as possible. In the name of individuality we blame others and grow apart. I am talking about the german psych system, and have no experience with american social works nor theraphists. I understand it may be hard for you to understand me, if you've never been a client yourself or just come from a very different finacial and cultural background. My intend is not to critize personally, but to raise awareness, speak for those who are afraid to speak and spread my word. I wish for the acceptance of others and our own wrong doings. Only with honesty can communication be effective. It is time to change Freuds outdated concepts, and combine needed humanities so we can finally evolve as a whole.

Societal psychology would be a good starting points. Which is characters is characterised by fifteen key positions:

1.Human beings need to be studied in a sociocultural context

• The individual and the collective cannot be separated ontologically

• The ecology of the environment, its objective characteristics, needs to be studied alongside ₹9 mediated reality

• People create social organizations-but it is the ocial organizations that recast people

• Innovation is as much an imperative of the social system f relations tO the environment as is conformity

• The aim of societal psychology is the development of conceptual frameworks or models rather than the forlorn search for invariant laws

• The need for theoretical and methodological pluralism

• There is a need to maintain a historical perspective

• Cross-fertilization between societal psychology and A7 other social sciences is indispensable for the adequate analysis of social phenomena and social systems

• There is a need for cross-fertilization among societal, developmental, and personality psychologists

• There is also a need for cross-

fertilization between basic and applied esearch

• Societal psychology requires a systems approach

• The study of a s social phenomenon requires a multilevel approach, at the macro as Weff as the micro level

• We need to accept and examine the mplication that there iS no such thing as value-free social research

• We need to adopt a much wider range of research tools

Originally posted by u/LanadelreyLarp on Reddit.

Top comment by u/granduerofdelusions

but then the field would have to start doing its job and engaging with the world and thinking about their subject matter.

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST SUCH A THING

Register here.​

Sunday, July 12

5:30pm IT/ 1pm UK / 8am ET (2 hours)

Online / Donation-based

Hosted by Liberate Mental Health - follow us here for future events.

Join us for a seminar and open forum with Parth Sharma (he/they) Abolitionist, Anti-colonial Scholar, Global Mental Health Researcher.

​Fundraising for a queer comrade to reclaim their safety - please donate here in lieu of ticket prices.

​In this session, we critically examine how the Mental Health Industrial Complex (MHIC) compounds harm for people, especially those from marginalized groups, by reinforcing the very social determinants of health that exacerbate distress, such as poverty, discrimination, and state violence. Rooted in community-based participatory research, and drawing from anti-colonial, intersectional feminist and abolitionist frameworks, this session synthesizes insights from youth-led collectives, community-based practices, and cross-movement solidarities (including disability and climate justice) to reimagine mental health. It highlights alternative approaches that centre Indigenous knowledge systems, relational forms of care, and the leadership of young people with diverse and intersecting identities, particularly from the Global South.

Originally posted by u/HELPFUL_HULK on Reddit.

Hello,

I currently work as a social worker at a juvenile detention center. I am also running groups there.

I discovered this subreddit today, and upon looking through many posts and seeing the comments, I see that I barely have my toes in the sand when it comes to being up to date on current literature, leaders in the field, and the best practice from a leftist perspective. At the same time, I want to learn more about psychotherapy from a leftist perspective and how that could potentially support the kids I'm working with. I also think they'd have an interest in it as well, since so much of the therapy I am encouraged to use is short-term solutions, focused on behavior modification and, basically, reinforcing a "comply" mindset.

I will also add I am slightly intimidated posting this as I am aware of how little I know at this point. I have read some theory but no theory in regards to leftist psychotherapy.

So I am looking for the following:

Books

Journals

Authors

Trainings

Certifications (would highly prefer follow-up consult as part of the certification process)

Consultations

Thank you!

Edited as some formatting issues appeared

Edit: again because of formatting issues. I'm writing this post on my phone, and the way the post looks before I post is different from the one I'm seeing after I hit save.

Originally posted by u/Nervous_Heat6080 on Reddit.

Top comment by u/Army_Exact

Are you familiar with the liberation health model? We have been learning about it in my MSW program and I'm planning on using it in community mental health. I can figure out how to send you a PDF of a book about it I plan to use in my practice, if that sounds interesting to you

Just discovered this book - I believe it's the first book to bring Gregorio Baremblitt's "schizodrama" to English (a distinctly decolonial schizoanalysis), and it provides a really excellent overview of both that and schizoanalytic clinical practice at large.

Available on Springer and copies available on Anna's Archive.

Originally posted by u/HELPFUL_HULK on Reddit.

Top comment by u/ProgressiveArchitect

Wow, great find! I’ll be going to Sci-Hub or LibGen for it.

PsychologyToday.com lets you filter by price range, but doesn't actually allow for price-based sorting. That has annoyed me for years, so I decided to do something about it. If you're looking for the cheapest / most affordable psychiatrist, medication management provider, or therapist in your area, now it's just a couple clicks away!

cw // mention of s*icide contemplation

I was previously with a Marxist-Leninist youth organization that got embroiled in a scandal. A lot of in-fighting occurred that led to more than half of the membership resigning. As an officer, I wanted to stay to look out for the well-being of the remaining members, especially the newer ones. I was, however, shocked by the aggressiveness of my fellow officers.

One of our alumnus founders then shared some words of encouragement, but there was a portion that left me shaken (emphases my own):

The challenge for all socialists is to unlearn the liberal bourgeois worldview that has been inculcated in us since day 1, as each and every one of us has grown up under capitalism…

This includes every aspect of our lives, even how we are taught about mental health. I know this very well because I’ve also been through the wringer of therapists, medication, and psych wards before. It is isolating and individualist because you are taught to detach yourself from others to “focus on your own healing.” That is bullshit and it makes you arrogant and self-centered. While I won’t discount the help of medical assistance in mental health, what truly saved me was the collective and embracing that I am a part of something bigger than myself. That’s why I always personally encourage comrades who are having a rough mental patch that the better medicine is to be with your comrades, not to isolate yourself.

I understand where they were coming from. I can only imagine how isolating of an experience it must have been to be confined in a ward for a period of time. I also acknowledge that therapy is mostly an individualist practice (through one-on-one consultations), I just never saw it as necessarily equivalent to the hyperindividualism the likes of the Pink Pilates Princess lifestyle.

I've also been in a DBT program that was conducted as a group session, and it was anything but isolating. It actually helped me unpack unhealthy core beliefs and re-learn to connect with other people. My experience contradicting their statement was one-half of what didn't sit right with me, and I regret not sharing it as my criticism.

The other half was that nobody left the organization so they could get matcha and do Pilates at the beach or smth. They left because the "better medicine" became horribly toxic in a short amount of time. In fact, I eventually left as well because my co-officers cared more about disciplining me for my "withdrawal tendencies" than the fact that I wanted to jump off a school building (we had a heated argument about confronting members with known mental health concerns). The lack of nuance and appropriate care destroyed any sense of safety. I ironically felt more like an employee in an abusive environment than a comrade, and I could not tolerate enabling their leadership tactics anymore.

I'm still getting professional help and am doing well. I've since accepted that I no longer aligned with their ideology (I confess to favoring anarchism these days), but I still want to hear from fellow leftists for the sake of feeling less isolated.

Originally posted by u/payasongchiquita on Reddit.

Top comment by u/bogiperson

There is a very old case study titled "Come Over, Red Rover" about a somewhat similar situation in Fifty-Minute Hour by Robert Lindner, I don't think it necessarily aged well (especially about race), but you might find it interesting to see these patterns about therapy recur in leftist organizations. I'm sorry you had to experience this too.

I personally had more of the reverse experience that in leftist circles, specific brands of therapy were heavily pushed, so I think it really depends on the group.

Originally posted by u/ProgressiveArchitect on Reddit.

Originally posted by u/PhilosophyPoet on Reddit.

Top comment by u/srklipherrd

asking in earnest and not trying to sound "clever" - I was under the impression anti-psychiatry and taking psychotropic meds (as you see fit) as being fairly mutually exclusive but reading these comments have me questioning that notion. To be specific, I understood anti-psychiatry as a radical form of informed consent vs an abstinent way of operating.

Let's say you're some mental health therapist working in somewhere you'd describe as mainstream, e.g. the UK's NHS has talking therapy.

Let's say you have no clue about historical materialism / socialism / psychotherapy-leftism and neither does your patient.

• What are you doing to your patient?

• What is your function in the capitalist system?

• And, in what situations will you meet a contradiction you can't resolve?

Originally posted by u/WritingtheWrite on Reddit.

The diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) is not a medical observation, but rather a political instrument designed to pathologize the individual at the absolution of the system. It functions to medicalize resistance, framing dissent and the rejection of bourgeois norms as symptoms of a broken mind rather than rational conclusions of political analysis. By labeling non-compliance as a disorder, the state effectively removes the moral weight from its own violence and redirects it onto the psyche of the oppressed.

This framing becomes patently clear when we examine the scope of the diagnosis. ASPD is far too broad to be clinically useful outside of this context. The criteria themselves reveal the absurdity of the construct:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. Repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

• Childhood presence of "conduct disorder" as evidenced by a history of any of the following in at least three distinct ways:

    • Aggression
    • Destruction of property
    • Deceitfulness or Theft
    • Serious violation of rules

• Is not explained by Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia

• Leads to distress or impairment

The requirement of functional impairment is the most damning part. You can display every "symptom", but if you get away with it then it's not a disorder. Billionaires don't meet criteria, but half of prisoners do. The "distress or impairment" clause is merely a class filter: if you have the power to evade consequences, your behavior is "visionary"; if you don't, it's mental illness.

Sure, if someone struggles with impulse control or emotion dysregulation, those are treatable symptoms that, if resolved, might improve their quality of life. But the vast majority of people who meet the criteria do so simply because they break the law, lie about it, and don't feel bad about it. Why would they? To rebel with intent within an inherently oppressive system and then feel remorse about it would be incongruent. This behavior should not be pathologized. It doesn't need treatment, it needs liberation.

The diagnosis isn't a disorder or disability. ASPD is a made-up label created to pathologize criminality. Practically any anarchist or ADHDer who's been to jail will meet the criteria. The label doesn't serve the individual- it serves the state, and it ought to be discarded. Normalizing ASPD as a diagnosis subverts the notion that smashing the state is good and that people should do so without remorse.

A distinction should be made, however, between the system's use of the label and an individual's relationship to it. For someone already labeled as such, reclaiming the term while refusing to internalize its shame can be a form of resistance in itself. If, however, a client without the diagnosis laments their struggle of acting without thinking, regretting it, and wishing to better navigate social boundaries to improve their wellbeing, e.g., there are several far more relevant diagnoses to choose from rather than funneling them into a category which only serves to stigmatize dissent.

The role of a psychotherapist shouldn't be to subdue the retaliation of the oppressed, but to help them understand that their "symptoms" are often adaptive responses to a unwell society and, importantly, that there exist effective outlets for it. We must reject the idea that the state's laws are in any way a baseline for mental health. The diagnosis is a construct, and the "cure" is revolution.

As leftists living under involuntary governance, we're forced into a contradiction of authenticity. Battling the internalized logic of capitalism and trying to resist the encroachments of fascism, yet adhering to its statutes and participating in it's mechanisms for survival. Psychoanalysis, when turned against the grain, offers a way to trace this fracture to its source- a method to excavate the root causes of suffering under oppressive systems. The inquiry needs to shift, however, from why we suffer to how we unlearn the habits of submission that keep us trapped within the architecture of our own oppression. Existing modailities fail to bring this unlearning into praxis.

Lacanian psychoanalysis, with its focus on language and symbolic structures as the mediators of subjectivity, maps the prison of late-stage capitalism. Yet, when analysis becomes an end in itself, therapy risks devolving into a luxury for those who can afford to dwell in their alienation rather than challenge the systems that produce it. In its best iterations, Marxist-psychoanalytic practice reproduces the very hierarchies we seek to dismantle: the therapist (or "analyst") becomes the expert interpreter of ideology, while the patient remains a recipient. The result is an individual capable of deconstructing their oppression in session, yet struck with cognitive dissonance and paralyzed when faced with direct action, mutual aid, or the simple assertion of boundaries in hostile environments.

Otto Gross' psychoanalysis, by contrast, treated the modality as a catalyst for sexual and social liberation rather than a clinical discipline- a force for emancipation and free love. Where Lacan's subject is defined by language and lack, Gross's subject is formed by authoritarian structures and social domination. His work pushed psychoanalysis toward anarchism, polyamory, and the dismantling of norms. Gross, however, remained tethered to certain questionable Freudian frameworks. This limited the radical potential of his project, yet his vision of a 'revolutionary unconscious' remains a crucial precursor to liberationist thought.

Liberation therapy attempts to bridge this gap by centering social location, naming internalized oppression, and treating symptoms as adaptive responses to systemic violence rather than individual failures. It decenters the therapist's authority, foregrounds collective and historical context, and insists that healing is inseparable from the realities of racism, sexism, class, and coloniality. This intersectional approach thrusts psychotherapy into explicitly political terrain without reducing it to moralizing or abstract theory.

Even liberation therapy, however, lacks a systematic bridge from insight to concrete action. It excels at helping individuals name their rage, reframe their suffering, and feel less isolated, but it fails to assist in how that awareness translates into genuine resistance and transformation. The disjuncture between critical analysis and practical application leaves the clinic powerful within the room but ill-equipped for real-world change.

Illegalist therapy fills this void by treating disobedience as a necessary skill to be honed through systematic desensitization. If obedience is a learned behavior rooted in the fear of state coercion, then disobedience must be practiced via a calibrated hierarchy of transgression. The work begins with with micro-transgressions-- technically illegal acts with minimal risk, like jaywalking in empty streets or pirating digital content --designed to trigger the somatic fear response without overwhelming the nervous system. As the client learns to ride out the anxiety spike and realizes the anticipated catastrophe never arrives, the stakes rise to visible defiance: e.g., flipping off a cop, and wheat pasting agitprop. Eventually, one might work their way up to acts like expropriation and destruction of property. Each step is anchored in somatic regulation, preventing retraumatization while forcing a cognitive shift where the "lawbreaker" identity transforms from a source of shame into a site of agency. By repeatedly testing the limits of enforcement and distinguishing between actual consequences and the phantom catastrophes of the internalized superego, the client systematically erodes the neural pathways of fear, turning the paralyzing weight of the state into a manageable variable in the equation of liberation.

This individual work scales outward. Communities that are not only desensitized to, but have actively destigmatized "crime" are less likely to rely on state institutions, and more likely to meet each others needs regardless of the law. This practical approach to liberation complements the insights of liberation therapy: the personal is political, but the political is also practical. In illegalist therapy, the therapist's role is not to interpret, but to facilitate the movement from analysis to action.

The goal here is not martyrdom. The goal is the deliberate dismantling of internalized oppression through direct, illegal action. The question is not "Can you handle the truth?" but "Can you handle the consequences?". If the answer is no, the work begins there-- not in abstract reflection, but in the concrete act of defiance. Psychoanalysis can help us see the chains we've internalized, but illegalist therapy teaches us how to break them. Illegalist therapy kills the cop inside your head.