Greetings Economists,
A great interview indeed.  As well as a slice of my thinking history
what with the creation of the SDS when I was young to really become
acquainted with radical thought.

Since Michael is here to perhaps answer questions I'll take a moment to
find some quotes and ask a few questions.

ML writes,
From my experience of working with student
movements and other campaigns, I saw the basic truth that people
transform themselves through their struggles. That idea became the
central concern of my political world view - how do you put people
into motion; how do you develop their capacity to self-transform?

Doyle,
Which mirrors my experience in the left.  And more so amongst disabled
people.

ML writes,
...there was a missing side
in Capital and that the book on wage-labour needed to be written.

Doyle,
Here I would pose the great divide that disabled people must raise,
suppose you can't 'labor'?  How does a Marxist think about this?  And
certainly also that Marx did not see himself as a 'Marxist'.  Rather
that labor and a working class are the basis for a different sort of
society than capitalism.  The value to me so far in ML's interview in
my view is the emphasis on the wholeness of a movement.  That then
means to me where does disability fit in?  Or how do the problems in
capitalism, like sexism, racism, etc relate to each other in the whole
not as 'identity politics' but as some grand view of labor that unites
all workers.

Now some self identified 'liberals' like Martha Nussbaum have taken on
'justice' in terms of disabled rights and she influenced by Amartya Sen
applies some sort of 'capabilities' view upon this aspect of class
struggle (or so it seems to me anyway though not to a liberal) which
extends the Locke/Hume nation state to include disabled people.

While this focuses upon individual rights like liberals do, the concept
of wholeness in the working class is often an abstraction so that a
Marxist does not know what to do with a blind deaf person.  They being
so super isolated from able bodied labor they appear as living
abstractions.  Though a certain sort of brain work like hand signs does
 bring them into the whole of capitalism where bias and bigotry against
disabled people rules.  This language work tends to be the framework of
a work or labor that unifies the working class in Marxist terms rather
than say liberal human rights.

But neither Marx nor Engels were in a position to comment upon the work
of language as we might see it now with automated computing solutions
to various disabled persons problems.

ML writes,
What you say about the
importance of mass self-transformation, the role of the subject in
history, must surely have implications for the type of political
organisations we create, as well as for their programmes?

Doyle,
That grid computing meaning getting social resources for language like
work to everyone, and that everyone then feels their connection to
everyone by the work process.  So taking ML's point about wholeness,
for Marxist they would see these tools as a means of creating the
totalilty of society where a kind of work, language like is the
foundation for the wholeness of society.

If one runs around looking for a resource to include a deaf person in a
meeting of all workers then one feels the need for a whole tool
structure that includes everyone at once.  If one looks at a web site
that  blind people can't access then one sees that a socialist global
system would have long since dealt with that as the bloody capitalist
diddle away with their half assed liberal solutions.  Or at least some
socialist would see the need for this because we all are influenced by
traditions chains as well and fail to understand what the 'whole' can
mean.

Now today I will meet with other disabled activists to discuss physical
access at KPFA radio in B erkeley.  Which is a great organizing options
amongst disabled people because able bodied people often are ignorant
if good intentioned.  In fact too leftist can be both more supportive
and more ignorant because the concept of the 'whole' is not quite
grasped.

ML in my view is a 'hero' of the U.S. socialist movement.  Hoorah for
ML.  Especially that he is now in a revolution in progress in
Venezuela.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

Reply via email to