Honest question: why don’t radical leftists agree to volunteer at group homes for disabled adults or become special education teachers?
As the fear of mass eugenics is becoming a reality in America, we can all see how the disabled (in particular, people with intellectual disabilities and neurodivergent differences) will soon be set up for mass eradication. The disabled aren’t “parasites” but full and equal human individuals who deserve respect, dignity and autonomy. They are hated in capitalism on the basis that they aren’t “useful” to the system. We also see instances where RFK is trying to wipe out autistic identities by creating a eugenicist “autism registry.”
Given this, why aren’t radical leftists dedicating most of their activism towards fighting and advocating for the disabled? Or dedicating their time and every to caring for those who are entirely dependent on the care of others to survive. Truth is we ALL need care from others. Why focus on any other issue when eugenics is the biggest evil in our world today and needs to be defeated before anything else?
I strongly believe radical leftists need to work and care for disabled people and we can start doing that by agreeing to be special Ed teachers (and thereby advocate for disabled children) or work at group homes for disabled adults. That’s a much better use of our energy and VALUES than protesting or political organizing. Eugenics is at the heart of capitalism and there’s no revolution without the disabled.
>>2340607Radical leftists are liberals, leftism = the left wing of capital from the french revolution that wanted reforms and bourgeoisie republic.
Regardless disabled people at group homes and SPEDs are not the revolutionary subject. Read Xi, let the robots take care of them.
>>2340844This
I've worked at a hospital for several years, about four. You see people die all the time, and you get used to it, which breaks you down. At the end of the day, I didn't want to talk to any human being.
>>2340607You are being ignorant in confusing the communist movement with people who act out of a sense of moralistic pity for suffering rather than recognition of the irreconcilable class interest against the capitalist class that workers have in collective solidarity to acquire the political supremacy of the proletariat and the abolition of private property.
Now I will quote a quote that describes what you seem to desire:
<2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
<A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
<To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
<We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
<The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.
<A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.
<Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
<Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
<It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.
<Karx Marx, 1848, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm >>2340979This.
Marx and Engels didn’t designate the proletariat as revolutionary because “it suffered more”. They saw proles as revolutionary because 1. It was their labour upon which society was dependent and 2. The nature of their work was collectivist, so they were already conditioned into working together for a higher goal.
It’s the same reason why the left is so invested in Palestine: it’s not because Palestinian suffering is “unique” but because the Palestinian people have proven that they’re able to fight back in a meaningful and effective way that could very well overthrow their oppressors/colonizers.
How are intellectually disabled people supposed to fight the status quo if they’re dependent on 24/7 care and can’t advocate for themselves? Plus, being a caregiver means you have very little (if any) time to engage in political activism.
Unique IPs: 30