Doyle Saylor wrote:
> (Doyle) Of course the point of view being expressed corporately is
> someone occupying a bed, a specific type of disability, when most lived
> disabilities aren't about being in bed all the time in a warehouse.
(Marta) I use "bed" (which is in quotations) like the nursing homes do. Nursing home accounting is done by counting how many "beds" they fill, rather than the people that are put in them.
(Doyle) The staff in many cases doesn't even grasp that anything else is
> possible.
(Marta) Well this is part of the problem, of course, but why don't they bother to learn? In home support services in California has been available for over 20 years and is available in a few other states...Not exactly news. Interestingly, the national PAS program is being opposed by nursing home unions which want to protect their jobs. This is understandable of course, but it is also backwards and steps on other people's freedom. Young quadriplegics and paraplegics get stuck in nursing homes too, just because they can't afford to pay someone to come in everyday and help with basic things. They are often capable of taking a job if they are not discriminated against in the hiring process. Perhaps the unions don't see that their jobs will still be there, because nursing homes are not going to be entirely shut down by PAS activists and people moving into home settings will need to hire a worker. Where is the flexibility?
> (Doyle) I regard the employee/employer view you expressed as not really
> coming to terms with class issues involved. Certainly the logic of
> costs of PAS and of independent living are superior to the Corporate
> warehousing system which predominates. For instance, which is better,
> corporate, or small employers or neither?
(Marta) If we follow the position of those who advocate for single payer - because *profit* has no place in health care and that those dollars sucked up by private insurance could be going into care, then we can make a similar statement about PAS. The trade off for PAS is usually cutting hours of service to preserve or enlarge business profits. So I would say that ideally PAS should be set up to maximize the service that people can get and to pay decent worker wages rather than go into shareholder or owner's pockets.
(Doyle) Your point is that
> independence is the primary goal to fight for, but are you talking about
> the concept of individual liberty as people are supposed to have in the
> U.S., or what?
(Marta) The disability movement uses independence, but I am talking about interdependence which is revolutionary. I envision a society where all people have the freedom and support to lead a qualitative life. This is afterall what redistribution of resources means, the evening out of the wealth so that no one must be too poor or restricted beneath their abilities. Disabled people do view nursing homes as prisons.
> (Doyle) Independence for a disabled person, aside from mobility access,
> strikes deeply into the heart of the Capitalist system concept of
> individual liberty. For example aside from needing attendent care, what
> about the independence of schizophrenics! I mean where is the
> autonomous line to be drawn for true independence? Or language related
> problems? Or Kervorkian, who "assists" the disabled to suicide without
> making sure they had independence of harsh social realities from the
> U.S. economy?
(Marta) If we hold down or mete out the liberty of one, everyone's liberty is threatened. I find disabled people are capable of determining these things themselves, the resistance comes from the bean counters and the medical profession. With anti psychotic drugs, some schizophrenics are holding down jobs as I write and do not require any assistance other than going to a psychologist. But even if they could not work in the capitalist economy, I would still say that all should be given the optimum possibility to lead a quality life. What we need to do is think about ways people can be engaged and productive in the society outside the narrow realm of capitalist productivity and be rewarded whether they "work" or not. Now that does challenge capitalism face on because the owning class drive is to use labor for profit and the work ethic is used for social control.
> (Doyle) Socialist regimes use terror, meaning emotions to control
> anti-social elements. Is there anything like an understanding of the
> disability issues that someone who is anxiety ridden might require?
(Marta) If think if you ask some Vietnam vets, they can tell you better than I can and society should support their needs.
(Doyle) Why
> do we readily inflict disabilities upon our enemies when the socialist
> injustice of that attitude is on the surface. I mean if we use
> disabling methods to deal with our enemies we are practicing bigotry
> against the disabled.
(Marta) One practices bigotry against the disabled after the person has become disabled and then suffers socially, economically, politically for having the disability. Intentionally causing anyone a disability is an act of unconscionable violence and I would think we would all agree with that.
> (Doyle) 70% of the disabled are unemployed. They are consistently the
> bottom of the heap in the system. Class systems are designed to wear
> out people physically for the greater profit. Look at the ever growing
> heap of people in workers compensation due to computers with the
> propensity to cause repetitive stress injuries. Disability rights
> clashes directly with the idea we are disposable commodities. But more
> deeply when one tries to really make independent living possible then
> most of the main barriers that the system makes to keep people in their
> place are made clear enough. Teaching the dyslexic to read, employing
> the bi-polar in a job that doesn't make their life a hell, on and on.
(Marta) Yes absolutely. I criticize the ADA for its wimpiness on the employment front, but the ADA can be used to protect injured workers who become disposable once they are of little use to make profit for the owning class. No one should be fired and dumped onto the horrible workers comp system which works better for the employer than the employee. Don't forget that most of the reason for unloading disabled people is also to unload the employer's cost of having to pay health insurance premiums for them, which usually go up. Think what it would mean to business if they could NOT unload their disabled workers but must make an accommodation for them - a job the disabled worker(some would consider these two words to be in conflict) can perform, necessary adaptive equipment, retraining, etc. Don't you think that the workplace would be safer for all workers if it really cost business to disable someone?
> (Marta) "Disability, for purposes of explaining oppression, is a social
> construct. I use ablism or physicalism to describe the functional
> hierarchy imposed on disabled people. When people don't run, jump, see,
> hear, or mentally perform to the medical model "norm" they are
> considered less than those who do. Ablism or physicalism is viewing
> difference as a superior(nondisabled)/inferior(disabled) paradigm and
> this is strongly reinforced by the medical model (which views these
> differences as "defects")."
> (Doyle) The problem with the idea of difference is where is the
> universal in a social system? For instance one might say that sign
> language is not universal in this English culture. If you say "English
> Only" that is oppressive, but we still need to communicate with a deaf
> person whether or not it is English only. We need a language of
> exchange that all can use not just experts, not just specialists. We
> still need a universal communication system even if the example of the
> current system isolates us in narrow segments and gives us little to
> understand what could replace it. If one sees a system has social
> justice and equality, that is deals with class in the system, then there
> has to be universal rules. Does that mean one language for all, or does
> that mean that different language systems have a right to exist within a
> larger universal framework? That arises again from the predominate
> problems of access for cognitive disabilities such autism, which are the
> knotty problems at the center of social justice and equality.
(Marta) The universal is, as always, the focus for equality, economic justice, peace and democracy - putting an end to inequality and misery - dignity for all people. I believe that the left must respect difference and include it within the fight for universal justice - universal healthcare, full employment at a living wage or adequate support in the absence of jobs, benefits that one can live on, etc. "The challenge for reviving solidarity is to build on mutual respect and support without dismissing or diluting difference. For instance, to move beyond ramps (beyond identity issues), we must first agree that ramps (metaphor for universal access) are indisputably necessary". (Beyond Ramps)
Practically speaking, when "problems" of access arise, I have found them to be uncomfortably linked to the question of where is the money? - the money for an interpreter, the money for a ramp, making material available on cassette for the blind, a note taker for someone who is cognitively disabled, etc. Then questions start, do we really want to spend our precious money on these items? Expensive needs get put at the back of the bus. A hierarchy develops where the disabled end up at the bottom, considered less important to attend a meeting.
It is a hard fact that this pluralist system pits the oppressed against the oppressed over mere pennies while the elite thieves take most anything they want. Larger numbers of people and more identity groups need to understand the importance of class dynamics- for instance, the disabled elite tend to transcend their disabilities with their money in the bank and put the disability rights focus on a white middle class agenda. All elites have placed us the position of fighting over crumbs and not having enough resources. On an individual level however, this is NO excuse. The money must be collected to provide universal access, it cannot just be ignored.
> (Doyle) It seems to me, that this is the time to introduce into Marxism
> the debate at the center of true equality, the mind debate. How can
> anyone understand such terms as reification, or alienation without
> reference to the brain? How can we really resolve inequality without
> really including into the center of this debate those who most in the
> heart of oppression? What does it mean that the Soviet Union used
> mental hospitals to hold political prisoners? When do we stop
> identifying workers as a specific corporate activity, and start seeing
> the whole of their lives? We can at least begin to see that women's
> work is work whether or not they are "employed" by the economy.
(Marta) I like your approach.