SubscribeMarx’s Chronic Boils Could Explain His Politics
From those defenders of the faith at Reuters:
Marx’s erupting skin may have influenced writings
LONDON (Reuters) - Karl Marx, who complained of excruciating boils, actually suffered from a chronic skin disease with known psychological effects that may well have influenced his writings, a British expert said on Tuesday.
Sam Shuster, professor of dermatology at the University of East Anglia, believes the revolutionary thinker had hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in which the apocrine sweat glands — found mainly in the armpits and groin — become blocked and inflamed.
“In addition to reducing his ability to work, which contributed to his depressing poverty, hidradenitis greatly reduced his self-esteem,” said Shuster, who published his findings in the British Journal of Dermatology.
“This explains his self-loathing and alienation, a response reflected by the alienation Marx developed in his writing.”
While HS is linked to boil-like lumps, the painful condition also causes more widespread infection, swelling, skin thickening and scarring.
It could also explain a number of Marx’s other complaints, not previously linked, such as joint pain and a painful eye condition which often stopped him working.
Shuster based his diagnosis on an analysis of Marx’s extensive correspondence, in which he wrote to friends about his health and described his skin lesions as “curs” and “swine.”
“The bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles until their dying day,” Marx told Friedrich Engels in a letter from 1867…
And so they have, as untold millions of the bourgeoisie and proletariat alike have suffered and died under the yoke of communism because of a skin disease.
One notes, however, that there is still no known medical explanation for Hillary.
Related Articles:
8 Responses to “Marx’s Chronic Boils Could Explain His Politics”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Like the recent study that showed conservatives’ brains are less “open” to change, does this show the beloved political philosophy of 99.9% of liberals was actually based on mental illness?
It sure explains a WHOLE lot about liberalism.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“hidradenitis greatly reduced his self-esteem”
Interesting, but hardly surprising. Having studied communist thought for much of my academic life (one of the largest projects I ever undertook was an extensive critique of Stalinism and its “betrayals” of Marxism & Leninism), I came to the realisation not long ago (alas, in my youth I admired these monsters) that communism is the disgruntled, angst-ridden teenager of philosophy:
It places the blame for the world’s problems on the “ruling classes” (I hate my parents! They’re so mean!!), who have used the exploitive capabilities of capitalism to enslave the working peoples of the world (Why do we need money, it’s so pointless! I don’t wanna get a job!), thus depriving them of the time needed to devolop their talents (I’m an artist!! You just don’t understand!), and achieve true happiness.
Communist philosophy believes itself to be the last word in human development, the ultimate truth from which nothing in the world is exempt (God! You’re all so stupid! If I ran things, everything would be fine!). It also proclaims its own success to be inevitable (I can take you!), no matter what the current situation (Whatever!), and is thus the ultimate “sore loser” (You cheated! If you’d play fair I would wipe the floor with you!).
This makes it especially dangerous, as apparently no amount of evidence can convince the truly devoted of the arrogance of their ideal (Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!), and central to that ideal is the necessity for the violent destruction of the bourgeoisie (I hate you! I wish you were dead!).
It would be funny, but for the gulags.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
So true, Invertigo. I’ve often been struck by how often the rhetoric of leftists contains anti-authority and - most tellingly - anti-father rants. I’ve been reading the Hillary bios lately and Hillary’s talk has always been chock-full of anti-father stuff. It’s a sweeping generalization of course, but I think many, many of the really virulent leftists hate their fathers.
But why can’t they just get therapy instead of acting out their hatred of “father/god” by wrecking other peoples’ lives by imposing policies based on their neuroses?
October 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I haven’t read much Marx, but every time I do I am astonishing on how wrong he is about, well, pretty much everything. I had a poli-sci prof who put it well: “Not only did Marx fail to understand politics, he failed to understand human nature.”
October 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Helena,
Sad thing is, a good number of them are already IN therapy. Psychoanalysis tends to warp their morality even further. After a few sessions on the couch, they can’t even tell the difference between their feelings and reality. So it’s natural that they then seek to make the real world reflect their own narcissism and neuroses. Any dissenting view threatens their very psychic integrity.
What you end up with is a bunch of know-nothings nodding in unison to whatever claptrap a professor or leftist blogger spits out at them. Any philosophy that feeds the neurosis is embraced, no matter how counter-intuitive or just plain vile. Occasionally a liberal Jew will speak up for Israel and get shunned. That’s about as far as it goes in terms of “dialogue” on the left these days. Meanwhile, leftists, perched on their therapists’ couches, pronounce themselves “non-conformists.”
October 31st, 2007 at 1:58 am
And all this time I just thought K. Marx was an A**Hole. Guess there is a medical excuse for all forms of leftist stupidity. ;-)
October 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am
So marx was an angry loser, most leftists are angry about something and they’re usually losers, no wonder they’re always gravitating towards such wankers.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Helena - you made a really interesting point about “virulent leftists” hating their fathers. A leftist will never accept the cohesive effect of a two parent family (why bother when the state can provide for all your needs….). It now makes perfect sense to me.