Ableism & Socialism

[High School Marxist]

How would socialism/communism/whateverkindofismyoulike go about helping prevent and indeed eliminating ableism? Obviously ableism is inherent in capitalism- but how does socialism/communism go about fixing that in ALL facets of life? Employment, transportation access, etc?

[roy]

well since there wouldn't be a capitalist system to discriminate against those who couldn't contribute fully to it, the 'burden on society' stigma would be dealt with. abundance and all that.

[High School Marxist]

Discrimination would also come in the form of handicapped not having access to the same methods of transportation in socialism, and just because capitalism is gone doesn't mean the mindset of 'Omg, look at him, he's disabled LOL.' would be gone. I'm not quite sure how socialism will fix this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

well since there wouldn't be a capitalist system to discriminate against those who couldn't contribute fully to it, the 'burden on society' stigma would be dealt with. abundance and all that.Yeah I think that's right. Our labor is a commodity in capitalism, so not being able to work for whatever reason (physical or emotional or past criminal background or age etc) means that in the logic of the market (which is therefore the logic of society in general) we are "damaged goods".

The ideological component comes into this question because of the issue of who controls the surplus in society and what is it used for. Capitalist social-Darwinist and contemporary "bootstrap" logic is exposed for being the misanthropic crap that it is when confronted with people who are physically disabled in some way - people with menatal and emotional problems can still be demonized freely and blamed for their conditions, but many physical issues are a little trickier even for FOX News type pundits. So ideally the capitalist logic would want people who are unable to work to be the sole responsibility of family units because the more logical alternative, use some of the vast wealth we all create to support people who are just not able to provide for themselves in the same way that others can... as opposed to supporting people who don't work not because they are unable but because of their position in society.

Very rarely in past societies were people who couldn't work just cast off. Most would contribute as much as they could even if it meant providing something not strictly productive such as being a bard or staying at home and working on less physically demanding things like home-crafts.

I think there will be an issue of some people who just can't work and workers will decide the cost of communal support of these individuals is more than worth it - especially when we all don't have to work so hard and so long or suffer from as much personal instability in rent and bills etc and dealing with the daily stress and hassle of the capitalist-work-pace. But I think a large percentage if not the majority of people who "can't work" under present conditions would be able to actually contribute under a different organization of labor. If someone sufferers depression or chronic pain or something where they can be fine 3 weeks and totally unable to work the next week, then this person will struggle to find adequate employment in capitalism. They either have to hide their condition and suffer through it or they will need some kind of special program that finds employment for people with specific needs. You can't go into an interview and say, "hmmm, I'd say my best quality is my focus on detail... my worst? Probably the debilitating but untreated (does this job come with benefits by the way?) depression which knocks me out of commission about 1/5 of each year." But there would be no shame in that mental condition if everyone worked less and we all had more room to decide the terms of our employment - our labor value being only use, not another commodity tied to the pace of the assembly line and thirst for profits. I think this would certainty go for people who had physical conditions as well.

[High School Marxist]

Thanks for the answer!

[Камо́ Зэд]

We may see a fairly comprehensive system of integrating those with ability and developmental differences into the workforce as a whole. Those individuals with challenges so severe that they can barely move or communicate would likely have access to advanced and comprehensive care and therapy. The primary difference between the socialist attitude towards ability and developmental differences and the capitalist attitude towards the same would be the notion of these differences as "disabilities" or problems to be eliminated, rather than differences to be understood. Even in a capitalist society, for all its shortcomings, we see the socialist attitude developing: that the world is dominated by neurologically and physically "typical" people does not make neurological and physical differences from the "typical" any less valuable. Indeed, evolutionary science recognizes the need for genetic diversity within a group that it might have the ability to adapt to changing environmental circumstances. For a species as conceptually and intellectually sophisticated as modern humanity, this type of thinking is useful for the continuing evolution of our conceptualization and perception.