Disability comes from the rejection of political purity

Cap Links

Identity politics prevent a unified struggle against capitalism by rendering the exploitation of class as secondary – this failure to capture the fundamental uniqueness of class as social location makes the violence of capitalism invisible.

In fact, she suggests, one way of understanding the uniqueness of the modern social form of civil society is to say that the coercive power of the state has been privatized: Private property, class exploitation and market imperatives do what the state used to do. In Wood's powerful words: "No ancient despot could have hoped to penetrate the personal lives of his subjects -- their life chances, choices, preferences, opinions and relationships -- in the same comprehensive and minute detail, not only in the workplace but in every corner of their lives." (254-5) Crucial here again to Wood's analysis is capitalism's separation of the economic and the political. The politics usually associated with a focus on civil society is what's come to be known as "identity politics" [in which a matrix of gender, race, ethnicity, etc. rather than social relations is seen as determining who people are and how they are likely to act<197>ed.] Wood is frustrated with the overwhelming focus on identity politics so prevalent today because, whether in its progressive or reactionary form, it precludes the kind of unified struggle necessary to defeat global capitalism. "Identity politics" even seems to make the oppression of capitalism invisible or irrelevant since the sufferings caused by capitalism are based on class, rather than these identities. Even capitalism itself, with its unifying totality (of surplus value extraction), becomes invisible as the social world is disaggregated into particular, seemingly separate, realities, with class being just one more "identity." Again, something is wrong with theories that so disarm us. Though the politics of identity claims to be more inclusive than what it sees as the reductionist politics of class, in fact Wood shows that the catch-all category of "identity" cannot accommodate the unique character of class, for this reason: Class differences are defined by relations of power and inequality, while sexual and ethnic cultural differences are not. While it makes sense to say that the latter differences deserve recognition and validation, class differences should not be recognized and validated, but abolished!

Capitalism undergrids disability by making disabled people dependent upon abled bodies

McNulty, 13--(Noreen McNulty is a socialist activist and studies intersection of disability and Marxism and contributor at the ISR, “A Social Theory of Disability”, Is. 90, July 2013, http://isreview.org/issue/90/social-theory-disability)

In pre-industrial times, disabled people were not excluded from making economic contributions, although they may have been viewed at the “bottom” of the social ladder. With changes in the mode of production and social relations that industrial capitalism brought, people with certain impairments were not able to work or were not seen as desirable. In addition, as the unit of production moved from the household to individual wage earners in the workplace, it became more difficult for those with impairments to find work or for the family to support them in the home. Urbanization, segregation, and changing ideology all contribute to the rise of disablement as a social “problem.” In turn, the rise of early capitalism was related to subsequent changes in ideology and the way of thinking about people with disabilities, resulting in a shift from a religious understanding (i.e., disability as a result of sin) to a scientific or medical understanding. The authors survey the development of an ideology of individualism under capitalism and the rise of the medicalization of disability. Conditions or impairments viewed as moral or social problems previously became the subject of medical intervention. This period also saw the rise of the institutions as a way to deal with the “social problem” of disability, provision of care outside the family, and as a way of social control of the poor. Seen as a “personal tragedy,” disability is seen as an individual problem to be solved by meeting personal needs, which in turn creates dependency, rather than viewing the problem as located in the way that work is organized and calling for a change in fundamental economic structures. The final section, “Agendas and Actions” is rooted in a discussion of the current economic crisis and the response to disability in the context of capitalist crisis. Throughout the book, the authors follow the twists and turns of capitalist development and its effect on how disability is defined and how capitalism responds to it, including the recent global crisis. One response of the market is in the privatization of services and the rise of charitable organizations, neither of which lead to self determination for people with disabilities. Drastic cuts to state services in an age of austerity also threaten day-to-day survival and quality of life. Another response is in rights-based solutions to discrimination. The authors challenge this solution and see its limitations: “Focusing on a rights route to emancipation as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end was always likely to be counterproductive . . . having legal rights does not mean they will be enforced, and even if they are, that enforcement will achieve the desired aims.” Issues of genetic testing and modification, euthanasia, and biotechnology are raised. Citing Disabled People’s International, societies “spend millions on genetic research to eradicate disease and impairment but refuse to meet our needs to live dignified and independent lives.” This sort of response, Oliver and Barnes argue, undermines changes that would support and “indeed celebrate the reality of human diversity, difference and frailty.” They warn “such an approach fits snugly into the social and economic relations of capitalism in seeking to eradicate the ‘abnormal’ and those who become, or even might become, an economic burden.” The New Politics of Disability offers a useful critique of the decline of the disabled peoples movement of previous decades. Capitalism adapts to and envelops new ideas, such as the absorption of parts, to the movement into nonprofit organizations or offices in the government. They write, “indeed, there are concerns among some disability activists that the assimilation of disability politics into mainstream political agendas will undermine the more radical aims and political struggles by disabled people and their organizations for social justice.” The authors also note the limitations of identity politics, which, they argue, tends to neglect the economic and material bases of inequality as well as the goal of “political-economic redistribution.” A clear vision of how to move disability struggles forward is lacking, note the authors. But this is not surprising, given the current state of disability rights activism and the global crisis of capitalism. Countries are seeking to fix the crisis on the backs of workers, students, and people—such as those with disabilities—who rely on government services. The decline of Marxism and historical materialism in the social sciences and its impact on theory, the fall of the Soviet Union, dominance of the global market, the decline of labor unionism, and the disappearance of the working class are all offered as reasons for why the current movement lacks this clear vision. Oliver and Barnes note their “waning optimism” since the first edition, which outlined hope for the future of the disability rights movement. While they note these challenges and offer “little prospect of transforming capitalism in the foreseeable future,” they conclude, “We still believe that the only long-term political strategy for disabled people is to be part of a far wider struggle to create a better society for all.” They foresee an end to disability oppression only “when the oppression of all is overcome and that will only happen with major structural, economic, political, and cultural transformation as well as resistance.”

Download 0.7 Mb.

Share with your friends: