What is the Marxist view on the Handicapped or the Disabled ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

What is the Marxist view on the Handicapped or the Disabled ?

[Dean]

That they are handicapped or disabled and their economic activity will be limited by that fact, and their needs will also be greater.

Not sure what you're looking for; handicaps of all types are problems for every society, and in every society that doesn't directly ostracize them, some method for meeting their particular needs is put in place.

And just like with all human needs, Marxists tend to believe in very direct, empowering models for meeting them.

[M-26-7]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

[#FF0000]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

Oh you best be joking.

[LC89]

There must be expertise that they has. I know L'Occitane train blind kids to become perfumers since the use smell to design perfume. It would be great that goverment has some programs that specialize in training them.

[EvilRedGuy]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

This better be a fucking joke, but its not even funny. Respect to the Lumpen!! :mad: Cmon, they are disabled, desperate, or homeless its nothing to joke about.

[Obs]

Respect to the Lumpen!!
Ehhh

[Die Rote Fahne]

That they are handicapped or disabled and their economic activity will be limited by that fact, and their needs will also be greater.

Not sure what you're looking for; handicaps of all types are problems for every society, and in every society that doesn't directly ostracize them, some method for meeting their particular needs is put in place.

And just like with all human needs, Marxists tend to believe in very direct, empowering models for meeting them.

Exactly this.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

You best clarify whether or not you are joking. If you aren't joking, then you'll likely be banned. You can then enjoy eugenics with the nice people of storm front.:glare:

[cb9's_unity]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" seems to sum it up pretty nicely. As far as I can tell that slogan doesn't exclude those who can't give much but need a lot.

[Revolutionair]

What the guy above me said.

[M-26-7]

Oh you best be joking.

Kind of joking but I mean if you believe in the labor theory of value how can you defend people who perform no productive labor? Don't they live off the labor of others, through taxes? I'm honestly asking here.

By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.

[Skooma Addict]

By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.


You are a fucking idiot.

[bricolage]

By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.
How can you eliminate disabled people without killing them?

[cb9's_unity]

Kind of joking but I mean if you believe in the labor theory of value how can you defend people who perform no productive labor? Don't they live off the labor of others, through taxes? I'm honestly asking here.

By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.

In an ideal world work would be totally voluntary, thus those who can not work would have no legal obligation to do so. Thus our problem with the bourgeois is not that they don't do work, it is that they exploit the working class. They don't pay workers equal to the value that they have created, and they enforce scarcity in order to keep the market alive. The disabled do neither of these things. Socialism will thrive because of abundance (as opposed to capitalism which goes into crisis because of it) and thus be able to provide for those who cannot work.

Don't fall for the strawman argument that Marxism is solely focused on what is good for the "group". Marxism aims to a create a society in which each individual can fully explore their entire human potential. Destroying class antagonisms and the market are only the steps to creating that society.

[Dean]

You are a fucking idiot.
More of Skooma's brilliant contributions.

[Dean]

Kind of joking but I mean if you believe in the labor theory of value how can you defend people who perform no productive labor? Don't they live off the labor of others, through taxes? I'm honestly asking here.

By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.
The LTV doesn't preclude social welfare. It explains how value is transformed in the market, the extraction of surplus value &c..

I'm not aware of any moral prescription thereof.

[#FF0000]

More of Skooma's brilliant contributions.

No that was unironically a brilliant contribution

[#FF0000]

Kind of joking but I mean if you believe in the labor theory of value how can you defend people who perform no productive labor? Don't they live off the labor of others, through taxes? I'm honestly asking here.

I'm going to take for granted that you really are just that fucking stupid so I'll explain it while only very rarely pointing out that you're an idiot.

Being disabled doesn't mean you can't function at all, first off. "Disabled" covers a whole lot of things, and even people with severe physical and even mental disabilities can live independently and function.

And either way whether or not someone is capable of work doesn't dictate whether or not they're worthy of a decent life. Someone's worth isn't dependent on how useful they are and it isn't someone's fucking fault if they have a disability.



By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.

Last I checked "disabled" isn't an economic class so please explain this.

[Rainsborough]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

Speaking as someone classed as 'Disabled' due to capitalistic activity, might I say 'up yours!'. :mad:

[L.A.P.]

"From each according to his ability,to each according to his need"

[M-26-7]

I'm going to take for granted that you really are just that fucking stupid so I'll explain it while only very rarely pointing out that you're an idiot.

Your whore of a mother should have had an abortion, you worthless abscess on the asscheek of humanity.

(I expect you'll now infract me for merely continuing what you started, you son-of-a-whore)


Speaking as someone classed as 'Disabled' due to capitalistic activity, might I say 'up yours!'. :mad:

The bourgeoisie might say "up mine" as well. My boss might say "up mine" as well. It doesn't stop me from being a revolutionary and from dealing with them and their class in a revolutionary way, when the time comes.


How can you eliminate disabled people without killing them?

Well, for one thing, under socialism there will be a huge increase in social investment in the sector of medical technology, so there will be a whole array of new technologies available, very many of which will probably be able to "cure" various disabilities that exist under capitalist society. So you will see a huge drop in the number of "disabled" people (who are a product of capitalism...as Rainsborough pointed out). Capitalism creates disabled people, socialism will cure disabled people.

Secondly, those whose disability cannot be cured right away can still be "reclaimed" through socially-useful work. Although capitalism does not provide jobs for these people, because their disability makes them work at a slower pace and reduced efficiency compared to non-disabled people, and all that capitalism cares about is the bottom line of profit, in a socialist society we can devise socially useful work for them, like generating electricity through the spinning of their wheelchair wheels (to throw out just one possible example). Under socialism such things will be done, because socialism puts people first, not profit.

In both of these two ways, the "disabled" will be eliminated as a class. I am kind of surprised at the reaction I'm getting here; I would have thought that a site full of revolutionary leftists would be more open and accepting of the idea that "disabled" is merely a category created, and forced on people, by capitalism. I think you guys are doing some classic blaming of the victim (disabled person) here.


I checked "disabled" isn't an economic class so please explain this.

No, it's a subclass of lumpen.


"From each according to his ability,to each according to his need"

That is a slogan of communism, we are talking about socialism.

[#FF0000]

No, it's a subclass of lumpen.

lol

[#FF0000]

Christ was there a worse and more offensive way you could have said all that before.


Well, for one thing, under socialism there will be a huge increase in social investment in the sector of medical technology, so there will be a whole array of new technologies available, very many of which will probably be able to "cure" various disabilities that exist under capitalist society. So you will see a huge drop in the number of "disabled" people (who are a product of capitalism...as Rainsborough pointed out). Capitalism creates disabled people, socialism will cure disabled people.

Disabled people are not a product of capitalism. People can be born with disabilities.


Secondly, those whose disability cannot be cured right away can still be "reclaimed" through socially-useful work. Although capitalism does not provide jobs for these people, because their disability makes them work at a slower pace and reduced efficiency compared to non-disabled people, and all that capitalism cares about is the bottom line of profit, in a socialist society we can devise socially useful work for them, like powering electricity through the spinning of their wheelchair wheels (to throw out just one possible example). Under socialism such things will be done, because socialism puts people first, not profit.


People with disabilities are capable of working depending on their disability. If their disability makes it impossible or dangerous to work, then they can't work and nobody forces them to.


In both of these two ways, the "disabled" will be eliminated as a class.

Listen, unless the disabled person is dealing drugs or is involved in organized crime, then they can fit into the working or capitalist class.


I am kind of surprised at the reaction I'm getting here; I would have thought that a site full of revolutionary leftists would be more open and accepting of the idea that "disabled" is merely a category created, and forced on people, by capitalism. I think you guys are doing some classic blaming of the victim (disabled person) here.

You found the most offensive and abrasive and ignorant way to post your opinion about this. Even now I'm still not sure if your attitude on the disabled.

[Agnapostate]

What of the severely disabled, those that are not self-aware and cannot conceptualize their own existence? It then becomes a quality of life issue, and I'd agree with Singer's perspective in Practical Ethics.

[M-26-7]

how does capitalism create mental disability?

The same way it creates all disabilities, by lumping these people into a supposed "disabled" category, which it then deems to be made up of unuseful people. Under socialism we will find a use for them so they will stop living off of other people's labor, which capitalism forces them to do.

Also, sometimes people who are born without mental disabilities can acquire them through capitalist things like industrial job-related accidents (for instance, Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)).

[#FF0000]

Yeah I don't know what to think about this. It's like you found the most offensive way to eventually state your opinion.

[hatzel]

I heard that when socialism kicks in, people won't even have to eat any more, as hunger will be abolished...that comes just after the magical curing of all disabilities, and is followed by the bit when volcanoes no longer erupt. Huzzah for socialism!

[#FF0000]

I heard that when socialism kicks in, people won't even have to eat any more, as hunger will be abolished...that comes just after the magical curing of all disabilities, and is followed by the bit when volcanoes no longer erupt. Huzzah for socialism!

Eh that's not really what he's saying. What he tried to tack on at the end there was that under socialism there would be an effort to include the disabled in every day society and the work place and all that.

Of course, he doesn't seem to understand that this is already happening, at least in the U.S. Has been since the 70's at least.

[cb9's_unity]

The same way it creates all disabilities, by lumping these people into a supposed "disabled" category, which it then deems to be made up of unuseful people. Under socialism we will find a use for them so they will stop living off of other people's labor, which capitalism forces them to do.

Socialism's first priority isn't to make sure everyone is putting in their 'fair share'. And while under socialism we will obviously try to cure the ailments of disabled people, it won't first and foremost be to put them to work. It will be because we want every human to live to their full potential.

Your thinking is very capitalistic in the sense that your obsessing about production. A socialist society cares more about the welfare of its people than the individual production of its people.

[hatzel]

What he tried to tack on at the end there was that under socialism there would be an effort to include the disabled in every day society and the work place and all that.

Ah! Well...you never know...the 'use' for them might be as fuel, you never know...

Ohohooo, I make myself laugh...not...

[Quail]

There are a lot of scoially useful and fulfilling jobs that could be done by people with disabilities, and as people have said before, if someone is unable to give as much back to society for a health reason, they don't deserve to receive any less. Society can more than be provided for even with some people being unable to do as much work as others.

One thing a lot of people on revleft say that I find a little bit dodgy, is that we will be able to "cure" all disabilities in the future with medical advances. The main thing I don't like about this statement is that a lot of people with disabilities might not see themselves as needing to be "cured," and I think that as well as medical advances for those that wish to use them, we must also work on acceptance.

[Phased Out]

Kind of joking but I mean if you believe in the labor theory of value how can you defend people who perform no productive labor? Don't they live off the labor of others, through taxes? I'm honestly asking here.

By the way someone referenced eugenics. But that's unfair, I didn't mean that they should be killed, I meant they should be eliminated as a class, like the kulaks.

I thought productive labor was going to be automated and...well what is it you guys exactly believe in? And what about NATURALLY unintelligent people who are ostracized from the community and decide to cause trouble against those that ostracized them?

Communists/Marxists think that EVERYBODY is innately smart and that their potential is being "held down" by class society. They assume that everybody will be cooperative and share a common consciousness and purpose.

[#FF0000]

I thought productive labor was going to be automated and...well what is it you guys exactly believe in?

As much unpleasant and tedious work as possible would be automated. People are always going to have to work, though.

Until we becoming the technological singularity or whatever.


Communists/Marxists think that EVERYBODY is innately smart and that their potential is being "held down" by class society. They assume that everybody will be cooperative and share a common consciousness and purpose.

No. I think it's more accurate to say that we think that people have a lot more potential than class society allows us all to realize.

I don't know where you got this nonsense about "common consciousness and purpose" though.

[Rainsborough]

Trouble is you can stick a red flag up an asso, and it's still an asso, but some think calling themselves a revolutionary somehow disguises the fact that they're just an asso with a red flag stuck up it.

[RGacky3]

To the OP, why don't you read.

[Dimentio]

Think, when you started to believe you had read every idiocy conceivable and thought you had reached the bottom of the Ocean of Stupidity, there's always some crack that's a little bit deeper...

[Dean]

Think, when you started to believe you had read every idiocy conceivable and thought you had reached the bottom of the Ocean of Stupidity, there's always some crack that's a little bit deeper...
There is a crack in everything - that's how the light gets in.
L Cohen

[Conquer or Die]

I don't give a shit what Marx thought about the handicapped, nor the self professed acolytes.

Handicapped people (mentally and physically) are oftentimes treated like utilities. The services performed for them are usually via pay and they are kicked to the curb after the caretaker shift has ended. This is not always true, but it is definitely partially true. Immoral societies who reflect a misguided "social darwinist" view of the world oftentimes tend to wish to eliminate them en masse so as to "improve" the general stock.

There are plenty of handicapped people who perform and do good things in the world despite their limitations. That being said, I'm not interested in the logical argument which proves this correctness. I'm more interested in the appeal to force, as in people who pursue measures of elimination against the disabled can simply be killed and dumped into mass graves.

[ContrarianLemming]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

hard fucking core

[ForImperium]

Exterminate them. They are a blight on humanity. Since they don't and can't work, they are lumpen scum.

Not joking btw.

I almost regretted joining this forum, but joining this website really exposes how evil, evil in the truest form of the word you Marxists are. Murder the weak and infirm?

Jesus Christ!

You use this facade "help the workers" but really, you're motivated by the most basest instincts, survival and material. Look at any Marxist society and you see what happens when you animals are let in political office.

[#FF0000]

I almost regretted joining this forum, but joining this website really exposes how evil, evil in the truest form of the word you Marxists are. Murder the weak and infirm?

Jesus Christ!

You use this facade "help the workers" but really, you're motivated by the most basest instincts, survival and material. Look at any Marxist society and you see what happens when you animals are let in political office.

I don't know if you noticed but literally everyone else thinks he's a dumb fuck for this, and I almost banned him myself for this. Then I decided he was being a stupid troll and to lay off the banhammer for once.

And you might want to work on your confirmation bias. I mean, honestly, you sifted through an entire thread of people calling that guy an idiot for his astoundingly ignorant, stupid, and disgusting opinion/joke (and on top of that, his basic misunderstanding of marxist class analysis, calling disabled workers "lumpen") and yet you manage to pull "OMG MARXISTS HATE THE SICK AND INFIRM" out of this. I mean for christ's sake I'm working on getting certified to teach special education and I know there are other special ed teachers on this forum as well.

Also the user in question is an anarchist and not a Marxist.

[Ovi]

Also the user in question is an anarchist and not a Marxist.
M-26-7 has been kicked out of the anarchy club. Seriously, disabled people can't in many cases be as productive as other people. Does that mean they should earn much less, perhaps not even enough for a decent life and become second class citizens? What the fuck happened with solidarity, abolishing poverty and social classes?

[Conquer or Die]

Note: A fascist who cloaks in red is permitted access to all parts of the forum. A revolutionary communist is banned for free speech.

What is the purpose of restriction? There is none. Revleft at its best.

[Obs]

Note: A fascist who cloaks in red is permitted access to all parts of the forum. A revolutionary communist is banned for free speech.

What is the purpose of restriction? There is none. Revleft at its best.
River, cry, us, etc.

[Conquer or Die]

River, cry, us, etc.

Without argument, sniveling, snide, jerkoff, etc.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The same way it creates all disabilities, by lumping these people into a supposed "disabled" category, which it then deems to be made up of unuseful people. Under socialism we will find a use for them so they will stop living off of other people's labor, which capitalism forces them to do.
My brother is severely autistic and completely dependent on other people's care. He is unable to do almost anything for himself and requires 24/7 care from at least 2 carers.

By your standards, is he not useful enough for your glorious utopian vision? Should he be 'eliminated'?

Imagine how a disabled person feels, without the ability to contribute to their society, in the way that us healthy folk do, knowing that they serve no purpose in the mechanics of working life, as they are unable to work a machine/computer/power tool etc? They are victims of natural forces beyond their control, and they rely on the good nature of workers who devote their labour power to helping them in their day to day lives.

If the principle of 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need' did not apply to this movement, and people like you had any influence on our ideology, then what would be the point in trying to liberate the oppressed people of the planet, both abled and disabled?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Depends, marxists will either set up homes of sorts and force them to live there, or they may force them to work at obviously limited jobs, or they'll put a bullet in their brain b/c they are a drain on the marxian society.

[Quail]

Depends, marxists will either set up homes of sorts and force them to live there, or they may force them to work at obviously limited jobs, or they'll put a bullet in their brain b/c they are a drain on the marxian society.
:confused:
Either you're joking or you have no understanding of communism.

[ComradeMan]

I am absolutely shocked and disgusted by some of the views expressed here and am glad the OP was banned.
But let's get our terminology straight too, there's a lot of bad terminology being used, albeit unwittingly.

disabled- no, there is no such thing as a person who is disabled! People have different abilities. Someone who cannot see, i.e. blind, may be a maths genius all the same- so let's talk about people with different needs and different abilities. Stephen Hawkins could be one example, he certainly has physical challenges but in terms of intellect he kicks the asses of a lot of so-called able-bodied people. I repeat, let's talk about needs and abilities instead of focusing on the negatives.

handicapped- no, this dickensian term should not be used- it implies "weighted down", "burdened" and thus could be construed as a burden.

I do not have any statistics to back me up, but I think it would be fair to estimate that most of the so-called "disabled" would be ABLE to make a productive and worthwhile contribution to society if society were also a little more open too. The number of people who have severe medical/physiological difficulties that render them, as such, unable to contribute to society are probably a tiny minority. Nevertheless these individuals deserve care by the rest of us because that's what makes us human.:cursing:

[#FF0000]

I am absolutely shocked and disgusted by some of the views expressed here and am glad the OP was banned.

OP wasn't banned. Other guy was.

Everything else you said is more or less spot on.

Also, person-first language is "person with disabilities", not "disabled person". Think people should know that.

[28350]

The labor theory of value describes how surplus value is generated within capitalism, not the worth of a human being.

Now that I've gotten my sensible thought out,
what the fuck?

[ryacku]

They aren't disabled. They are differently abled. Their contributions to society would be different. They may require different circumstances to function.

[ComradeMan]

They aren't disabled. They are differently abled. Their contributions to society would be different. They may require different circumstances to function.

Thanks! That's what I think too.

[Tifosi]

Depends, marxists will either set up homes of sorts and force them to live there, or they may force them to work at obviously limited jobs, or they'll put a bullet in their brain b/c they are a drain on the marxian society.

Dude, this is classic!:lol::lol::lol:

I see the very shit your on about everyday. Capitalism makes all people, yes, that includes people of all abilites work crap hopeless jobs. It forces familys that can't copy with having disabled children for reasons like money, style of your house etc to put their kids in care.

'Anarcho'-Capitalist, like the most fucking stupid thing going.

[ComradeMan]

Dude, this is classic!:lol::lol::lol:

I see the very shit your on about everyday. Capitalism makes all people, yes, that includes people of all abilites work crap hopeless jobs. It forces familys that can't copy with having disabled children for reasons like money, style of your house etc to put their kids in care.

'Anarcho'-Capitalist, like the most fucking stupid thing going.


Check this link...

http://www.disabilityworld.org/April-May2000/IntntalNews/Cuba.htm

"What most impresses Juana Andrés Cambra of Spain, is the care people with disabilities receive in Cuba. Ms. Cambra is a coordinator for disabled people's issues at the Social Welfare Office in Valencia, Spain."

[Budguy68]

In an ideal world work would be totally voluntary, thus those who can not work would have no legal obligation to do so. Thus our problem with the bourgeois is not that they don't do work, it is that they exploit the working class. They don't pay workers equal to the value that they have created, and they enforce scarcity in order to keep the market alive. The disabled do neither of these things. Socialism will thrive because of abundance (as opposed to capitalism which goes into crisis because of it) and thus be able to provide for those who cannot work.

Don't fall for the strawman argument that Marxism is solely focused on what is good for the "group". Marxism aims to a create a society in which each individual can fully explore their entire human potential. Destroying class antagonisms and the market are only the steps to creating that society.


Its one thing for you to talk about how much more productive Communism would be then Capitlism (HAHAHAHAH!!!!!! LOL!!!! LOLOL HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLLOL) its another thing for you to point at a nation and actually show us...

The value of labor is between the employer and the employee.
The employee should probably pick a skill that is high in demand and not a skill that everyone can already do.

[ComradeMan]

Its one thing for you to talk about how much more productive Communism would be then Capitlism (HAHAHAHAH!!!!!! LOL!!!! LOLOL HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLLOL) its another thing for you to point at a nation and actually show us...

The value of labor is between the employer and the employee.
The employee should probably pick a skill that is high in demand and not a skill that everyone can already do.


But what kind of production do you mean? Production in order to create surplus and increase capital or production that meets a social need? What are your indices?

[#FF0000]

Its one thing for you to talk about how much more productive Communism would be then Capitlism (HAHAHAHAH!!!!!! LOL!!!! LOLOL HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLLOL) its another thing for you to point at a nation and actually show us...

Except the only nations that could be called "socialist" weren't very industrialized so no matter what they had, socialism or capitalism, they would not be as productive as the U.S. or France or Britain or Germany.

Nice try though.

[ComradeMan]

Except the only nations that could be called "socialist" weren't very industrialized so no matter what they had, socialism or capitalism, they would not be as productive as the U.S. or France or Britain or Germany.

Nice try though.


Good point. Interesting how the "successful" revolutions have come about where the industrial proletariat did not play a significant role- Cuba, Russia, China etc.

[#FF0000]

The industrial proletariat did play a significant role in Russia.

[ComradeMan]

The industrial proletariat did play a significant role in Russia.

I thought the peasants were more pivotal in that their "control" of food supply led to the shortages that in turn led to the urban revolution? The whole idea of a rural proletariat etc.

[#FF0000]

Well the urban proletariat played a role. I mean they were there :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Well the urban proletariat played a role. I mean they were there :lol:

:lol: Fairplay- I see your point;) they were there all right.

[MellowViper]

"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" includes the handicapped. In a communist society, they wouldn't be able to do as much physical labor, but they would get their needs met. That's not to say they couldn't use their minds, if they're not mentally handicapped anyway. Ideally, at some point, technology would be able to cure anyone and everyone of all disabilities. First, I think physical handicaps would be solved with cybernetics, then later mental handicaps could be solved with cybernetics.

[ComradeMan]

"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" includes the handicapped. In a communist society, they wouldn't be able to do as much physical labor, but they would get their needs met. That's not to say they couldn't use their minds, if they're not mentally handicapped anyway. Ideally, at some point, technology would be able to cure anyone and everyone of all disabilities. First, I think physical handicaps would be solved with cybernetics, then later mental handicaps could be solved with cybernetics.

I agree with you and furthermore...

"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs"- Nowhere in this statement does it say physical ability either, it could be any kind of ability- take Stephen Hawkins for example. He has not physical ability as such but intellectual ability.

I think a lot of people get fixated with this idea of "workers" meaning factory workers alone, as abilities only ever meaning physical work abilities.

You also mention the future- that is a good point. With robotics and technology a lot of physical work will become redundant anyway. Hence those science-fictions about things like the rise of the robots etc being in a sense a metaphor for the cyber-proletariat of sentient robots reflecting historical class struggles.

[Oswy]

What is the Marxist view on the Handicapped or the Disabled ?

Their needs should be met and their productive potentials supported.

We might want to deconstruct the term 'disabled' too. We're all 'disabled' in that we all have physical and mental limitations to some degree, so this is not an issue about the stereotyped person who uses a wheelchair or who is blind, it is an issue which affects us all.

[MellowViper]

You also mention the future- that is a good point. With robotics and technology a lot of physical work will become redundant anyway. Hence those science-fictions about things like the rise of the robots etc being in a sense a metaphor for the cyber-proletariat of sentient robots reflecting historical class struggles.

If robot provided labor entailed the development of sentient machines and their enslavement, it would be just as unethical as enslaving a sentient being developed out of biology. Conscious robots would have to be given labor rights, just like anyone else. That also includes extra terrestrial beings, as well as clones and hybrids. As long as they're as sentient as a water wheel or a rock, they could do a lot of good for society. This would make for a good topic for another thread.

[MellowViper]

Dude, this is classic!:lol::lol::lol:

I see the very shit your on about everyday. Capitalism makes all people, yes, that includes people of all abilites work crap hopeless jobs. It forces familys that can't copy with having disabled children for reasons like money, style of your house etc to put their kids in care.

'Anarcho'-Capitalist, like the most fucking stupid thing going.

Anarcho-Capitalism seeks to revive the robber baron economies of the Gilded Age. Their agenda is indistinguishable to that of neo-liberals. It'll only result in poor houses, debtors prisons, Dickensian orphanages, child labor, longer work hours, no workman's comp, no minimum wages, walled cities and private mercenaries for the moneyed elite, no protection for everyone else, increased prostitution, increased crime, lower life expectancies, etc etc. Just look at sociological statistics from the early 20th century, and that's what we'll get a repeat of. ...or for that matter, look at modern statistics from countries that provide all the sweat shop labor for multinationals. They act like anarchism and socialism is a contradiction, but that very name, anarcho-capitalism, is an oxymoron. To truly abolish government, you have to abolish social hierarchy as well. Yah, you might get rid of the entities that consciously refer to their selves as government, but what you have left in place are economic entities and elites that have all sorts of leverage over you, and unlike the previous authority, the new de facto powers, corporations and private industry, can't be voted out of office. Money is simply a symbolic representation of power. If I have 5 bucks, I can command an employee at Starbucks to make me a latte. If I have millions of dollars, I can hire an army of lobbyists to further undermine representative democracy in favor of my own, personal interests.

[Amphictyonis]

What is the Marxist view on the Handicapped or the Disabled ?

Eugenics and social Darwinism are for the birds (and capitalists/fascists).

[Amphictyonis]

Anarcho-Capitalism seeks to revive the robber baron economies of the Gilded Age. Their agenda is indistinguishable to that of neo-liberals. It'll only result in poor houses, debtors prisons, Dickensian orphanages, child labor, longer work hours, no workman's comp, no minimum wages, walled cities and private mercenaries for the moneyed elite, no protection for everyone else, increased prostitution, increased crime, lower life expectancies, etc etc. Just look at sociological statistics from the early 20th century, and that's what we'll get a repeat of. ...or for that matter, look at modern statistics from countries that provide all the sweat shop labor for multinationals. They act like anarchism and socialism is a contradiction, but that very name, anarcho-capitalism, is an oxymoron. To truly abolish government, you have to abolish social hierarchy as well. Yah, you might get rid of the entities that consciously refer to their selves as government, but what you have left in place are economic entities and elites that have all sorts of leverage over you, and unlike the previous authority, the new de facto powers, corporations and private industry, can't be voted out of office. Money is simply a symbolic representation of power. If I have 5 bucks, I can command an employee at Starbucks to make me a latte. If I have millions of dollars, I can hire an army of lobbyists to further undermine representative democracy in favor of my own, personal interests.

Oliver Twist meets Red Beard. I've always envisioned a sort of mad max beyond thunderdome environment. An 'anarcho' capitalist society would be dystopian for sure. Even worse than the current reality capitalism with a 'public' state creates.

Capitalism without a state is impossible anyhow. If these asshats had any idea they would understand a hierarchical society cannot exist without a state. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical so....do the math.

[MellowViper]

Oliver Twist meets Red Beard. I've always envisioned a sort of mad max beyond thunderdome environment. An 'anarcho' capitalist society would be dystopian for sure. Even worse than the current reality capitalism with a 'public' state creates.

Capitalism without a state is impossible anyhow. If these asshats had any idea they would understand a hierarchical society cannot exist without a state. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical so....do the math.

If you don't have a sense of democratic solidarity among everyone, true anarchy will deteriorate pretty fast. It happened in Europe. They had brief periods of anarchy until war lords decided to enslave everyone into feudal servitude. Capitalism is basically the slave system that's always existed in the history of, so called civilization, just with a government enforcing a number of rights for the masses. Unfettered capitalism will ultimately lead to slavery. Really, slavery in America was only allowed because it was deemed acceptable by the consensual, representative government in America to treat uprooted Africans as sub-human. If they could have forced the white under class to do the same thing as the blacks, they would have, because it would have been much cheaper than importing forced labor from Africa. They couldn't, however, because it would have lead to an upheaval. If they could have done it with the Indians, they would have. They even tried, but they would often successfully run off, because they were familiar with the environment.

[iwwforever]

Anyone notice the propaganda campaign in the U.S. about putting people with disabilities to work? Last time they had a push like this in was the 70's, when the Vietnam vets were coming home. The state would rather force injured veterans to work than to pay them disability. As if life is not hard enough for a person with a disablity. This works well for the capitalists...they fill jobs, get tax breaks, keep a deserving person from getting disabiliy and keep unemployment high...thus driving wages ever lower. Yet another way that war is profitable.