What's the Marxist position on Psychopathy and "ontologically evil" people in general?

Pretty easilsy explained:

Psychopathy from a marxist pov is not a problem as people who are in the west stigmatized for their traits, systematically discriminated and moralized against are an asset in socialist systems.

Think about it. Psychopathy is not a binary thing. It is an amalgamation of many spectra of more or less developed traits. Westerners often think our science is somehow "better" or "correct". It isnt. Its just a bunch of dudes (no women) figuring shit out and giving themselves airs.

This leads to the conclusion that " psychopath" is a slur in and of itself. It is another chauvinist function.

And if you have understood that, you understand that we are talking about normal people who have been born or nurtured into a situation where they have reduced empathy, hightened impulsivity, reduced fear, etc.

These people are excellent surgeons, mountain climbers, etc. In a socialist environment, they get what they need to exist well and thrive while being a conatructive part of society.

For those who still believe the myth of absolute evil: that is not a thing. Its a horror storry to sell weapons. Yes, it is possible that one goes off the path of constructivity, they get into a mental hospital and help, maybe training, we'll see.

Currently, the west is training roughly a billion people to become raging narcissists, sociopaths and so on. The west (ie capitalism) and its people at the top are objectively evil and they need to go.

I don't know if this matches the exact most up to date psychological definitions, but my understanding of it is:

• ASPD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) is the main one where the diagnosis contains one of malignant intentions and behaviors.
• Psychopathy is a bit more murky and can have overlap with what gets defined as NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) but if the research of James Fallon is to be believed (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/ side note: I don't vouch for this particular source, it's a quick one I could find on his story for the moment), psychopaths can exist insofar as they are incapable of feeling empathy, but they can still intellectualize empathy and if raised in the right kind of environment, can behave in generally "pro social" ways.

From this and other things, I tend to extrapolate that people start with certain predispositions, but what is produced from these predispositions can vary quite a bit. I don't have a source on it offhand, but I recall for example a story of someone in a more communal culture who had "voices in their head" (in the clinical meaning that people would associate with debilitating schizophrenia) but for them, these voices were actually friendly and supportive.

So I would say, as a general rule:

• In a long-term view of planning and building, we should expect that some people will have a different psychological starting point than the norm and account for that in how we think about systems and communities, especially when it comes to repeating issues that keep cropping up and make life harder for people (e.g. in the case of disabling conditions).
• However, we should avoid viewing predispositions as being behavior defining (rather than behavior influencing and even then, it can get into eugenics-adjacent territory and just kind of self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense fast focusing on what people are predisposed to if you start labeling it as leading to "good" or "bad" behaviors).
• For people who already have established behavioral patterns, communist vanguards have had to apply reeducation or force in some contexts, but I don't think it's particularly practical to get bogged down in fine psychological delineations in this process. It could be very wasteful and missing the forest for the trees to expend more energy on how people are different than how they are the same, when dealing with limited resources and difficult constraints (which is going to be a reality in any ongoing power struggle). The capitalists benefit from this focus because they can use it as a wedge to divide and individualize people, but we more so want the reverse, for people to relate and connect well. And for the most part, looking at the motives of a person's material conditions is probably going to be more telling than any DSM chart will ever be.

The position on "psychopathy" is underdeveloped. Understanding of those with ASPD and other cluster-bs is in its infancy. You do not require a mental illness to be a selfish asshole, that passes for normal these days.

ontologicallly evil is just idealism per excellence. Psychology is also heavily based on capitalist base (as a superstructure) and often serves to "neutralify" and "make into nature" various conditions not conductive to productivity and exploitation. OG marxists even considered the entire field to be quack science in general. Not that I agree, but given how everyone and their mom nowadays uses clinical language/how psychology as a field is constructed as the factory line to fix labor alienation and the cognitive war against the individual waged by the empire. I can see why they doubted its usefulness.

Maybe my comment could be a bit unhelpful, but I'm studying psychology while being active in my organization, so I would argue that antisocial disorders/ psychopathy wouldn't make a person evil, but it's understandable where this adjective is coming from, I mean, you would see in someone with this disorder a lack of empathy.

There is absolutely a correlation between this type of disorder and the incarcerated population, since they would be more inclined to violent acts and a general disregard to law-abiding  behaviours.

But I really do think that this discussion would be going beyond the good vs evil nature of mankind, and more in the bad or mad discussion, so if this condition could or should be considered in a lawsuit and things like that. 

I also apologize for any mistakes, as English is not my first language.

TLDR: probably best to not look at that trough a necessarily political lense, but through a psychological one