> Hi Michael,
Hi Marta --- I seem to be still on here -- or at any rate I got this message.
I am am supposed to be off -- getting them later in a bunch...
> "Socially valuable" being defined as work is going to butt
> heads against the disabled people's movement. The concept
> instantly devalues the impaired body which may be incapable
> of producing in the sense you speak of.
It does no such thing...at least that I can see -- so you will need to explain...
But I may not get your reply for awhile, if I get off...please note.
It says there is socially valued work, and not. That is a fact. Me painting murals would not be socially valued, nor me playing shortstop, or the violin, or who knows how many other things.
Someone with eyes like mine, for that matter, driving trucks would also not be socially valued -- actually, it would a social disaster.
What parecon says is if a person can do socially valued labor --then their remunration will be for that -- whatever they settle on doing...for effort and sacrifice.
On the other hand, if one can't do socially valued labor, presumably for health reasons, one simply gets an average income by virtue of being a person. Likewie, specally medical needs in a parecon are undoubtedly covered by social insurance, which everyone has.
> While many disabled workers are denied the opportunity to
> work either due to discrimination of not getting an
> accommodation on the job, it still remains that there are
> those who will not be "productive" in the sense of making
> products. Now, these people are marginalized, cast off as
> useless under capitalism.
Yes, but not in a parecon. Though surely we wouldn't ask someone to do something they can't do, much less require it of them, for them to have an income.
> The right to be different may include a right not to produce
> anything and still remain a valuable part of society.
You don't have to produce anything to be valued -- of course. Nor do you have to produce to be entitled to social product -- if you honestly can't. But if you can, you do -- or that's the norm in a parecon, at any rate.
> How does Parecon deal with this matter?
I am not sure what the matter is we would be dealing with.
What is socially valued or not is not the person, but particular actions, labors, by people.