> I stick by "mutual ruin of the contending classes" (Marx/Engels) and
> "socialism or barbarianism" (Luxemburg), and think that the more positive
> of these outcomes in the U.S. depends on the creation of a left that is,
> substantially, neither racist nor sexist: and that such a change will at
> some point come quickly or it will not come at all.
I agee and would add that the creation of an effective left must not be ablist or physicalist. The battles that women and racial minorities have had to fight to gain some recognition of their specific issues within the left, disabled people, it seems, are having to fight as well.
How many times do we read a string of all the "isms" such as sexism, racism, agism, etc that omits disability - most all the time, in every progressive publication. Why is that still happening 8 years after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a civil rights bill directed at addressing discrimination against the disabled? This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely would like some input.
Since I am new to this list I offer some personal background. I am an author who has recently published my first book, Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract (Common Courage Press), and yes, I do have a significant disability. To give you an idea of where I fit in the political spectrum, my book was endorsed by Alex Cockburn from whom I have learned much. As well, I respect Doug Henwood's contributions, and LBO is quoted in my book.
I do realize that disability is arcane to many on the left because disabled people have had next to no voice and not many disabled writers have articulated a disability politics that ties disability oppression to capitalism/structure rather than identity/culture. This is why I wrote the book, to attempt to open the dialogue.
Marta Russell Los Angeles