“…This is a question because, on the one hand, historicist, identitarian and/or economistic Marxism (Marxism not menaced by the Lacanian Real or what Parker called the “three kinds of antagonisms that bear on work in the clinic”; Parker, , p. 178), would find it difficult to relate to psychoanalytic psychotherapy; and, on the other hand, behaviourist, cognitivist, and/or medical forms of psychotherapy marked by psychologisation, pathologisation, ego‐centrism, adaptationism, and pharmaceutical remedies would find it difficult to relate to post‐metaphysical Marxian questions of ethico‐politics, subject‐production, and change/transformation as revolutions in subjectivity. It would also find it difficult to relate to Marxism marked at the same time by non‐essentialist understandings of class (Resnick & Wolff, ), deconstructive understandings of capitalism (Gibson‐Graham, 1996), and non‐teleological interpretations of transition and development (Chakrabarti & Cullenberg, ; Chakrabarti & Dhar, ; Chakrabarti, Dhar, & Dasgupta, ). This is also because the positivist versions of both Marxism and psychotherapy could find something in common – for example, ideals of objectivity, neutrality – but imaginations of each premised on a critique of metaphysics, secular theology, and positivism would give to each a shape that would be difficult to reconcile with the metaphysical, secular, theological, or positivist version of the other.…”