Van Gogh Should Stop Trying to Win His Brother Theo Over: Let Go and Move On

I. Van Gogh’s Younger Brother Theo Was Not Someone Who Helped Him Flourish; Objectively, the Relationship Undermined Him

Van Gogh should have maintained a healthy psychological distance from Theo. People usually say that Theo was Van Gogh’s patron and supporter, that Theo was a great man, and that Van Gogh owed him. Van Gogh thought so too. Van Gogh was an ordinary person like us, carrying a heavy moral burden and easily caught in internal conflict.

But Van Gogh and Theo had a classic relationship of one-sided, lengthy emotional outpourings—a relationship of pathological symbiosis. Theo embodied Van Gogh’s complex about rescuing his family of origin, as well as his unresolved need for mirroring of the self: Theo allowed him to see himself, providing mirroring and a twinlike alter ego, all the more so because Theo and Van Gogh had so much in common.

Van Gogh’s loneliness lay in his intense longing for connection and to be seen. But he chose the wrong people in Gauguin and Theo. Their karmic obstructions were too deep, and they were too mediocre to understand or truly see Van Gogh. This intensified his internal conflict, his need to prove himself, and his compulsion to transform others, deepening his existential suffering.

Van Gogh devoted enormous mental and emotional energy to transforming, awakening, educating, and cultivating Theo. He hoped—and Theo himself also expressed the hope—that Theo could follow Van Gogh’s path and become an independent artist of the people.

But “respect other people’s destinies, and let go of the rescue complex.”

Such prolonged relationships of one-sided emotional outpouring, transformation, and rescue often become draining and toxic. Over this long process, Theo subconsciously “made toxic use” of the relationship. Van Gogh’s encouragement and artistic connection became a source of emotional gratification and practical benefit for him. His rejection of and doubts about Van Gogh supported his refusal to change, his willingness to conform to prevailing tastes, and his enjoyment of “socialization.” That deep rejection and doubt, in turn, provoked Van Gogh’s efforts to prove himself, his breakdowns, and his suffering, perpetuating the cycle. In the vast majority of cases, prolonged, one-sided nurturing merely encourages and reinforces the other person’s deterioration and draining behavior.

Entanglement in this kind of relationship bound by karmic obstructions impairs judgment, fuels internal conflict, undermines confidence, severs people’s connection with themselves, and worsens existential crises and social predicaments.

Psychoanalysis likes to analyze how people trap themselves in poverty through their own personality predicaments. One very common scenario is that people dare not succeed out of “loyalty” to their family of origin and parents—or to Theo. They are willing to fail in order to maintain the connection.

II. Many People Will Say That Without Theo, Van Gogh Would Have Been Worse Off. Wrong. Be Selective About Relationships; Better None Than Unsuitable Ones

People are accustomed to thinking that “a bad relationship is better than no relationship,” but toxic relationships have an enormous detrimental effect on people. Be selective about relationships: friendship in the present, love in the present. Do not bring friends along on your journey; find friends along the way.

Van Gogh had long since made his choice subconsciously: to stand with the people, down in the mines. The people never attacked him as a madman. Those who attacked him were the small and petty bourgeoisie, the rich-peasant class, and the Parisian petty bourgeoisie. Van Gogh had excellent social skills. Among the people and the proletariat, and among left-wing intellectuals and painters, he had strong connections—simple, natural, effortless connections. For example, the prostitute Sien and the peasant woman Gordina gave him meaningful companionship and strength in the present and helped advance his art. Yet the world of the small and petty bourgeoisie and his family of origin misunderstood and maligned these relationships.

Van Gogh had simply not yet completed his transformation into a Marxist.

Had he not been entangled in karmic obstructions and devoted his energies to the wrong people, he would have been healthier, had better artistic and social connections, and escaped poverty sooner. Without his arrangement with Theo and its cash-flow model, Van Gogh would have been compelled to change course, explore other, more workable arrangements, and find an art dealer who truly suited him. He would have been more confident—and compelled to develop that confidence—and seen a wider world.

*Van Gogh Needs Marx and Zhuangzi* lists many left-wing intellectuals and painters who supported him, including Pissarro, Signac, and Dr. Gachet. These were people who understood him and helped him flourish. They had relevant art-sales networks and social networks. He should have communicated and collaborated more with them, allowing new networks of contacts to open up naturally.

Only by letting go, preferring no relationship to an unsuitable one, and distancing yourself from entanglements can you recover your health and natural connections. This is fundamentally true of any relationship: stay close to those who help you flourish, and keep your distance from those who undermine you.

Lu Xun’s life was much the same. Only ordinary people and the left understood and supported him. Lu Xun’s relationship with his younger brother Zhou Zuoren was a classic Theo predicament. Early on, the two were also close partners in literary and artistic work. Lu Xun’s career was successful, he was physically and mentally healthy, he earned a good income, and he supported his younger brother. Even so, he could not truly win his brother over to his side; Zhou Zuoren instead became a collaborator with the Japanese. Relationships between people ultimately come down to their values and positions. People cannot change others. Do you really think your personal charisma and powers of persuasion could surpass Lu Xun’s?

III. Van Gogh’s Libido Knew Everything; He Was Always Growing

Van Gogh himself was, in fact, continually awakening and growing. Over just a few short years, from his twenties into his thirties, he relinquished his veneration of the church, his expectation of his parents’ love and approval, and his expectation of recognition from the art world. Theo was actually his task “in the present,” his final task. Had Van Gogh lived, he would most likely have let go of Theo just as he had let go of Gauguin. Later in life, Van Gogh began writing to his sister Wilhelmina. This was, in fact, his libido beginning to find an alternative, a substitute, a replacement for his relationship with Theo. He could discuss socialism with his sister; apparently, he could not with Theo.

Van Gogh saw very clearly that Gauguin was an utterly mediocre petty bourgeois who lacked the courage and strength to leave as Nora did and confront Cthulhu. Could Van Gogh really have failed to understand that Theo, too, was a mediocre petty bourgeois?

Deep down, he knew. Yet deep down, he also wanted to rescue, awaken, and nurture him. His libido was at war with itself. But his “rational” mind did not know. This is what it means to say that libido knows everything, while thought is crude: people need to connect with the deeper mind.

In fact, Gauguin’s provocation of Van Gogh triggered his core complex. Gauguin’s provocation alone was not enough to cause Van Gogh such anguish that he wanted to cut off his own ear. Letting go of Gauguin was fate’s revelation to Van Gogh, the beginning of his next step toward change.

Theo was a “Nora’s fellow prisoner” (*Nora’s Fellow-Prisoner Syndrome*: the bonds between fellow prisoners are part of the prison). Distancing himself from Theo was a very difficult lesson in Nora’s departure: the last umbilical cord of the karmic obstructions of his origins, wrapped around his neck. It meant bidding farewell to the cord and to suffocation.

This lesson was too difficult, especially for someone living in 1870, someone with a physiological neurological condition, someone lacking social support. Yet looking at Van Gogh’s progress and vitality from the other direction, we can see his growth and strength. One’s intrinsic nature always does its utmost; the present is always complete.

Zhuangzi: “Rather than keeping each other moist with spit, it is better to forget one another in the rivers and lakes.”

IV. *Van Gogh Needs Marx and Zhuangzi*

I recommend reading Van Gogh’s letters to his younger brother because Van Gogh is such an exemplary case, and so clear and transparent. As observers, we can all clearly see the familiar karmic obstructions in their relationship: the karmic obstructions of the small and petty bourgeoisie. The vast majority of the small and petty bourgeoisie have no friends; they lack the foundation in their personalities needed to make friends. Why did Marx and Engels have only a few friends throughout their lives? What, exactly, were the predicaments of people such as Hess and Feuerbach? I have already made this very clear in my earlier series of commentaries on the collected works of Marx and Engels and my *History of Petty-Bourgeois Socialism* series.

This article also shows you the framework of Marx-Zhuangzi psychology.

People habitually imagine that the way out for the small and petty bourgeoisie is financial freedom, poetry and faraway places: becoming a Gauguin as a digital nomad in the south of France or Dali, living out *The Moon and Sixpence*. Best of all would be to become Monet, painting water lilies in a Parisian garden. They think Van Gogh was extreme and abnormal, and that Theo was loyal and stood by his brother. All of this is the ideology of the small and petty bourgeoisie.

There is no way forward within the spiritual world of the small and petty bourgeoisie, as illustrated by Theo’s death after Van Gogh’s: Van Gogh had been his spiritual pillar. The only way out is to leave as Nora did. The only great path is Marxism, whose version for the present era is Marx-Zhuangzi psychology.

*After Nora Leaves, Part 3: Van Gogh Syndrome*:

1. The Theo predicament: trauma and karmic obstructions from his family of origin, existential suffering, collapse of the self, depleted mental and emotional energy, mistaken understandings of the small and petty bourgeoisie and attempts to win them over, and so on, trapped Van Gogh in a strained, effortful relationship centered on winning Theo over. Select people; do not cultivate them. This applies especially to partners.
2. The predicament of class and social relationships: mistaken understandings of the small and petty bourgeoisie and attempts to win them over.

Policy and strategy are a person’s lifeblood. Mistaken attempts to win over the small and petty bourgeoisie mean devoting your mental and emotional energy to the wrong people. Because “the people around you,” “people in your industry, upstream and downstream,” and “clients” are all members of the small and petty bourgeoisie, you mistakenly make them the spiritual center of your life. That is entirely different from making them the focus of your work. You mistakenly treat the small and petty bourgeoisie as “the people,” and the people as the small and petty bourgeoisie.

Previous article: *Being Selective About Relationships: Friendship in the Present; Do Not “Seek Recognition”; Stay Away from “People Waiting for You to Prove Yourself and Evolve”*