There needs to be proletarian disability justice movement. I think communists have ended up being pushed into seeing disability justice as some kind of frivolous idpol, and its not helped by the fact that so much of it is carried by very shortsighted middle-class ppl right now. The movement for disability rights has become associated with unreasonable, aggressive attempts at gaining accommodation (sometimes in cases where a reasonable discussion about accommodation could be had). While the actual ways that accommodation could begin to be pushed for, especially in working class context, are completely ignored.
Disabled people exist in the proletariat. Even when they're shut out of working jobs, they end up being confronted with the issue of being cared for. Their families, also working class, end up with this responsibility, and will have to make immense sacrifices (at least for mid-to-higher supports-need disabled individuals) as they can't afford daily care workers (usually). A lot of times they will opt out of this and abandon the disabled individual, to either die on the streets or end up in a poorly-funded public care facility, where the exact support services that they need are neglected and they live a terrible, shortened life. Even some disabled individuals with bourgeois family paying for their care deal with some of these problems, but of course the ones with working class origins have a much more guaranteed miserable fate.
Unions could fight for better workplace accommodation for the supports needs of disabled workers. The workplace is an extremely critical site for disability rights to be fought for within. And the issues of disabled workers should be addressed by their comrades. More public money could be spent on public care services that either work with families or host the disabled individual in a facility. These services could be empathetically based on the supports that a person needs
Oops forgot the last period, and misspelled some stuff.
Also, context for the text in the screenshot:
https://autisticadvocacy.org/2021/12/functioning-labels-harm-autistic-people/It's part of an ongoing discourse about some label that's increasingly being used by reactionaries (
https://autisticadvocacy.org/2026/04/asan-alarmed-by-iacc-process/) to fuck around with autistic support services in harmful ways, but it also contains some of the points that I'm trying to make about disability support.
>actual ways of fighting for it
>look inside
<fight for gibs and to "accomodate" (how? The companies aren't going to pay for it) workplaces
>this thread again
We literally have this same exact retarded thread every month. Fuck off back to Reddit.
I support any form of gibs to anyone for any reason. Even if it isn't socialist, communist, marxist and even if it doesn't perfectly align with my personal view of socialism because how else are people meant to get ahead as rentoids(I am one) in america?
Just make EBT universal while we're at it.
I'm for all of the gibs, but when I hear the phrase "disability justice" my "fuck, these people are probably twofaced pricks trying to make us look bad" detector goes off. It just harkens back to the mid-2010s for me, and the "SJW movement", which was so damaging, and obviously led to trump / MAGA. Possibly because "justice" implies you want to harm a person over this, and also you're hostile to leftists over this for some reason. IDK. I'm fundamentally unreceptive to your post.
If you just made a post being like "hey, man, we're really lacking in our policies for disabled people in murica" then people would probably be more receptive of what you're posting. Until then, I'm probably going to take other anon's sides above, and tell you to "fuck off".
You know what it is, actually? It's not just what I wrote above, but it feels like you're trying to worm the idpol into a left-wing political movement which you know will be fundamentally opposed to it. just the way you're couching it in your post. "Disability rights" I would not refer to as idpol. But instead your post just makes it feel like you're pushing it in an idpol-type way. "Disability justice". I think any time I hear that phrase I'm going to just immediately assume it's a person working another one of the usual bullshit subversion angles.
We do need to have compassion for people with disabilities, and whatnot. Your post is just clearly pushing a different agenda, in a very worm-ish, deceptive way.
>>2919415So you think corners should be cut and some people should be left out? Why exactly?
>>2919302"gibs" is the most racist burger word ever and you should be ashamed at using it.
>>2919411>>2919415Literally vibes based analysis, instead of engaging with the OP you are just talking about how it feels.
>>2919340Isn't profit and rent extraction a type of gibs?
>>2919499Because communism needs soldiers and workers, not indolent whiners
>>2919499I did not write anything to this effect. I wrote the opposite in the posts above, in fact.
This guy also
>>2919648 makes a partly fair point, in my opinion. We're supposed to be fighting a class war. Not running around being….whatever the fuck OP is.
Although I personally completely believe in protecting the weakest and most vulnerable, nevertheless.
>>2919643That's right. This is politics. How you present your message, and whether you make it appealing or unappealing to the masses matters. *gasp*. What a shock. I know. Right, man?
>>2919643>>2919690Also….
>U did a racism word on the internet! That means ur bad, and i'm gonna make you feel bad for using it!FFS, fuck off back to CNN, liberal. PC police. Abomination of western mentality.
>>2919695Vibes politics burgroid. Your kind will be hanged with wire nooses.
Instead of diarrhea fights how about the CommunistWorkersSoldiers(TM) in this thread explain how pure class struggle will solve this? Because if it cannot then why is this person in the wrong for being a SJW liberal?
>There needs to be proletarian disability justice movement.
Sure.
>I think communists have ended up being pushed into seeing disability justice as some kind of frivolous idpol, and its not helped by the fact that so much of it is carried by very shortsighted middle-class ppl right now.
It certainly can't be reduced to frivolous "idpol", but why do you think it is that this is a struggle near-totally dominated by the labor aristocracy and petty bourgeoisie in the imperial core countries? It's because the question of "disability" itself needs to be problematized as emerging from class struggle, rather than in frameworks of biological essentialism and vulgar materialism that most (including OP) fall into when discussing this. For the bourgeois classes (big and petty bourgeoisie, labor aristocracy) "disability" serves as a marker for how society must accommodate them, for the working majority and especially oppressed nations it is a tool of class oppression. Those who speak out are labeled insane and institutionalized, those who cannot or will not operate in a manner desirable to capitalists are excluded and medicated, and genuine medical care for the antisocial and traumatized is reserved only for those who can pay (not the workers of the world!). Thus we cannot think of "disability" as something existing across classes or irrespective of class struggle. The behaviors which reproduce capitalism every day are far more harmful than the behaviors of any known mental "disability", and not everyone exhibits these behaviors, or desires to exhibit them. Why is this set of behaviors of a minority of people which actively harms others not considered a disability?
>The movement for disability rights has become associated with unreasonable, aggressive attempts at gaining accommodation (sometimes in cases where a reasonable discussion about accommodation could be had). While the actual ways that accommodation could begin to be pushed for, especially in working class context, are completely ignored.
Again, why is it surprising that this movement for accommodation is uninterested in working class contexts within the imperial core? Accommodation is a right for the bourgeois, not workers. The solution for the working class is problematizing the "disability" question to its core and ruthlessly criticizing all that exists. It means rejecting the label entirely and putting the ingenuity of the masses in command; a force which doesn't need to "accommodate" anyone to include them.
>Disabled people exist in the proletariat. Even when they're shut out of working jobs
If they are not working jobs, they are definitionally not proletarian. While absolutely there are people who fit the category "disabled" in the world proletariat, people who exist in contexts where the wages of those around them are high enough to even marginally support another person are not living the same experience as a "disabled" proletarian. In this paragraph in general you aren't referring to the line between the proletarian and bourgeois experience, but the petty bourgeois and big bourgeois. Rather than engage with the genuine experiences of those who are "completely propertyless, who are compelled to sell their labour to the [bourgeois] class" who have "nothing to lose but their chains" so many of y'all love to take the lower classes of the imperial core as the revolutionary subject and do no real investigation as to why they keep pushing the interests of "shortsighted middle-class ppl".
>Unions could fight for better workplace accommodation for the supports needs of disabled workers.
Insofar as it damages the profits of the capitalists, yes. This is a big practical difference between these struggles in the imperial core states and the proletarian struggles elsewhere. The issue within the imperial core states is that the capitalists can intensify exploitation abroad to produce the overhead to pay for such accommodations at home. Thus, it's necessary for such labor struggles to have an internationalist character alongside the workplace struggle and not be fought as a "free trade union" struggle for "practical" benefits. An "accommodation" in the US should be an accommodation everywhere. The boss is happy to let you have a special desk, or chair, or break time, or a therapist, or whatever. See how they react when you demand that for not only yourself and your coworkers, but also at the sweatshops which do most of the work producing the value.
>>2919867Most of your post is agreeing with me, but I appreciate the idea of problematizing the concept of "disability". It should be noted that disabilities can affect a person's success in non-economic areas as well, such as socializing (though you could say the means of socializing is also mediated through capitalism, in ways like what third spaces are available and how much of a financial cost it can be to access them, infrastructure for physical mobility, moral judgments about ability to be employed and be a "good worker", etc). Also, being a capitalist is caused by agency (as well as circumstance), so that ostensibly stops it from being psychiatrized, even if a psychiatric practitioner or institution was willing to do such a thing.
It can't be denied that disabilities at least stop you from being "able" to participate in capitalism. Also, for example autistic workers might need accommodation for their sensory sensitivities, their restricted behaviour, difficulty at informal socializing, stuff like that. Their health and mental wellbeing could deteriorate slowly from these things, and cause them to be fired cutting them off from surviving on wages.
I currently subscribe to a mix of the social and medical models of disability. It's hard to not see both as intricately connected to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disabilityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability
>If they are not working jobs, they are definitionally not proletarian. What do you call the masses of people who don't work a job but also don't have access to bourgeois financial supports? Lumpenproletariat? Interesting question of classifying these unemployed disabled people relative to class society, I guess.
>While absolutely there are people who fit the category "disabled" in the world proletariat, people who exist in contexts where the wages of those around them are high enough to even marginally support another person are not living the same experience as a "disabled" proletarian.Does empirical evidence support this? If it was true, then higher supports need people in the families of the working class would either die abandoned or end up as wards of the state. Not disputing it, though.
>>2919990*Autistic workers could also have their non-verbal behaviour accommodated
>>2919867>The issue within the imperial core states is that the capitalists can intensify exploitation abroad to produce the overhead to pay for such accommodations at home. Thus, it's necessary for such labor struggles to have an internationalist character alongside the workplace struggle and not be fought as a "free trade union" struggle for "practical" benefits. An "accommodation" in the US should be an accommodation everywhere. The boss is happy to let you have a special desk, or chair, or break time, or a therapist, or whatever. See how they react when you demand that for not only yourself and your coworkers, but also at the sweatshops which do most of the work producing the value.This is a real problem, yeah. It's inevitable that a material accommodation for a disabled worker will require additional investment by a capitalist, and the entire point of a third world sweatshop is that there's only the smallest possible investment in each worker. Sweatshops shouldn't exist, period, so the struggle to abolish them is the only hope for disabled workers.
>I think communists have ended up being pushed into seeing disability justice as some kind of frivolous idpol
it was like that from the beginning. ableism and things like eugenics were very standard universal things in western society during the era of karl marx and throughout the early 20th century as well, treating disabled people as human beings is a relatively recent phenomenon. until the modern era, the so-called cripples and invalids and feeble-minded were either a) hopeless tragedies to feel sorry for and never really acknowledge or talk about, b) entertainment to laugh at and gawk at in a freak show, or c) monstrous vermin to be removed from society by any means necessary for the good of the race. disabled people never had any place in marxist ideology, marx himself used ableist language to describe how capitalism turns the noble worker into a "crippled monstrosity" and marginalized the sick and elderly and disabled as the "surplus population" etc. of course the marxist fanboys will say, "well marx was just a product of his era that's how everyone talked about disabled people in 19th century europe" - exactly, that's the fucking problem, our whole culture was rotten to the very core and the problems of western society go much deeper than just a structural error in how we design our economies and run our factories, western society has a deep-seated contempt for humanity itself and delusions of anthropocentric mechanical perfection that have been undercutting our social progress from day one and continue to do so to this day.
We actually have this in britain: DPAC. It was founded as an anti-austerity movement and when disability benefits came back on the table the "gen z disability activist" group flamed out and DPAC is still there.
>>2920232looks interesting
Unique IPs: 17