This is probably going to ruffle some feathers so I'm going to preface this by a series of points that I'm not making before I get to the argument itself to pre-empt kneejerk reactions (skip the bullet points if you just want to read what my argument is):

  • I'm not addressing a statement like "You don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism"

  • I'm not arguing that capitalism doesn't aggravate serious mental illness

  • I'm not arguing that capitalism doesn't cause or, at the very least, exacerbate minor mental health struggles to develop into full-blown chronic mental illness

  • I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't profit from mental illness

  • I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't intentionally exploit neurodivergence

  • I am taking the position that chronic mental illness is a part of disability. Disabilities vary and some can be intermittent but they still pose a significant impact on the ability of an individual to participate in society in the way that they would like to.

On to the argument...

Oftentimes you hear people saying variations on the phrase "It's not you, it's capitalism!" in response to discussions of mental illness.

While the sentiment is well-intentioned, I do not believe that it's a statement which is truly radical but rather one which is aesthetically radical by invoking (superficial) critique of capitalism but at the same time which masks crypto-individualism and which fails to grasp the nature of material conditions while unintentionally dismissing and minimising the impacts of chronic and disabling mental illness.

Since we are discussing disabling mental illness, let's use physical disability as an analogy to help illuminate my position.

Imagine a person who is a permanent wheelchair user who cannot access a building because it only has steps and no access ramp:

"I can't get into the building because I can't get up the stairs"

"It's not you, it's capitalism!"

Well, no. It is in fact you.

Ignoring this fact is not empowering and it distracts from the very real and present material conditions that a disabled person faces by shifting a discussion about present conditions and personal limitations to an abstract discussion about structural issues is not an act of allyship but ultimately it serves to diffuse and even silence the frustration that a disadvantaged person experiences.

This is why it's pseudo-radicalism.

If that person lost function in their legs because of an industrial accident, would it be radical to respond with "It's not you, it's the lack of workplace safety regulations"?

Of course not.

Regardless of how that permanent wheelchair user came to be a permanent wheelchair user, the fact is that they experience disability as a personal limitation.

That person would still be disabled if they lived in the wilderness, outside of capitalism. That person would still be disabled in a socialist society. Denying this reality is denying the nature of disability and in doing so it's false equality because, while many of the struggles that a temporarily-able person experiences would no longer exist outside of capitalism this fact does not necessarily carry over to disabled people.

Just like colour-blindness serves to deny, diffuse, and whitewash the present-day struggles of people of colour and the ongoing history of racial oppression, so too does this attitude of what I'm going to call "able-blindness" achieve the same thing for people with disability and chronic mental illness.

A person of colour who faces poverty due to intergenerational poverty and systemic factors like exclusion from education and employment is not going to be comforted by a person saying "You're not poor, it's because of capitalism"; two things can be true at once and identifying one of the major causes or aggravating factors does not change the nature of poverty.

Accurately identifying the etiology of a problem is not an inherently liberatory act.

To return to the point, a seriously depressed person is going to struggle to get out of bed regardless of the political economy they experience their depression under.

Show

I would urge people to consider what their intentions are when they say "It's not you, it's capitalism"; is it to raise class consciousness? Is it an act of solidarity? Is it something else?

If you intend to raise class consciousness then I would urge you to consider whether you are approaching the discussion with a person with disability from a place of expertise in their own lives and their circumstances.

If you intend to act in solidarity then I would urge you to consider whether you are approaching the discussion with a person with disability from a place where your own subjugation is given preference over those who are more marginalised than you, and in effect perpetuating this marginalisation.

We should expect better of our comrades and of ourselves.