Hello YouTube! Today I want to do an
overview of disability in the context of
capitalism-- a topic I've noticed many
prominent leftist channels have
understandably shied away from. But not
me! Oh boy I can't wait to read the
comments.
This bitch isn't even really disabled.
She's just whining about nothing. Why
don't we do eugenics? I'd absolutely shit
in her mouth. Disclaimer before I start:
every single person experiences
disability differently. My experience is
not The Disabled Experience. I'm not the
disability ambassador. There will likely
be a lot of disabled people who disagree
with a lot of the things I say and these
are probably smart people. I know I have
plenty of internalized ableism to sort
through and probably a lot of other shit
wrong with me and I hope this video
reaches some people who can help me with
that. I want to start a dialogue, I don't
want to tell you what to think. I don't
have a camera but I do have a mic that I
may have borrowed without permission
from my brother
so let's get star--[Jeremy] stealing is wrong get
a job and buy your own mic.
[Leslie] Well I-I
can't. I can't work a job.
[Jeremy] Uh save up your welfare checks then.
[Leslie] *laughs* Oh Jeremy Stawman, you kidder!
[Leslie] *laughs* Oh Jeremy Stawman, you kidder!
[Leslie] *laughs* Oh Jeremy Stawman, you kidder!
Oh.
Oh--
Oh no.
you were serious.
Disability and Capitalism
Access to resources is obviously
something that people who are not from
wealthy families struggle with, but it's
a particularly difficult problem for
people who are legally considered
disabled. Once you depend on the
government for money
you're not only less likely to live
above the poverty line but functionally
no longer allowed to do so. In the United
States, you can't legally have more than
two thousand dollars in your bank
account and still receive benefits. And
Social Security certainly make sure
that's not fucking likely. Disability
benefits hover at what is determined to be
poverty level. Currently $12,140
$40 come on, round it up-- The
federal poverty level was first
determined in 1960 and this
number has only been slightly adjusted
for inflation every so often ever since.
In 1990 the Urban Institute concluded
that in order for the poverty level to
be comparable to the 1960s threshold it
would have to be at least 50%
higher, which would put a quarter of the
American population below it. Let's see
what this would be nowadays *clickity clack keyboard sounds*
$18,210
Disabled people are nearly three times
as likely as the general population to
live below the already inaccurately low
poverty line. And yes, before I get a
lecture about person-centered language
and defining disability by government
standards, I intentionally put the word
"disabled" before the word "people" here
because in this case I'm referring to
the defined social category measured by
the census-- not individual people who
have disabilities. Of course there are
many people who have disabilities who
are not considered disabled by the state
and many people considered disabled by the
state who don't themselves identify as
disabled.
So basically fuck you I'm  a disable-ed and I'll say what I want.
By the way, if you're American and you receive disability payments you can open up an ABLE account. You can only use that money
for medical expenses because America is
a dystopian hellscape, but at least you
might be able to avoid crippling medical
debt-- and get that new shower chair
you've been eyeing! Links in the
description.
[Jeremy] You said you can't work but you look fine to me. Even if you were in
a wheelchair or something then you
could still sit in an office and do what I do
[Leslie] But I couldn't because I'm disabled.
[Jeremy] Why not? You don't look sick.
[Leslie] Okay, well, there's a lot to unpack here. You see..
well, there are two main models for
discussing disability, the medical and
the social. The Medical model of
disability is that a person's disability
is a problem with their body that needs
to be fixed. The Social model posits that
it's a problem with society.
[Jeremy] How? How
could someone being sick be a problem
with society? Are you saying your
sickness is society? You go to the doctor,
the doctor says you're healthy or not.
What did the doctor say?
[Leslie] I have issues with both of these models actually the medical model can be dehumanizing for
the many disabled people who don't think
they have a problem. Many people who are
non neurotypical or Deaf, for instance,
often don't want to be fixed since these
conditions aren't in any way inherently
harmful or painful and in fact they feel
a sense of pride in their identity.
Furthermore, there's a pretty long and
disgusting history of subjecting people
to invasive, impractical, and even deadly
medical interventions for conditions
considered disabling, but which actually
pose no mortal threat. Due to this huge scary fucking nightmare problem, the social
model has largely been adopted as the
new standard for disability discussion
and legislation. However, Marta Russell,
author of the essays contained in
Capitalism and Disability, would contend
that the current version of the social
model, also known as the Minority Model,
has an insidious neoliberal bias which
can often deny the reality of disability
in a capitalist society. A more accurate
model, Russell suggests, is a Social
Theory of Disability Derived from Labor Relations.
[Jeremy] I don't think doctors are diagnosing
people with social conditions. Deaf
people can't hear, that's one less thing
they can do, that is a disability. You
still told me why you can't work.
[Leslie] *sigh* Okay, fine. I don't think you're getting it. There is perhaps no better disability to
illustrate a social theory of disability
derived from labor relations
than my own Kafkaesque nightmare condition.
I also have several co-morbid conditions,
but those aren't really relevant to this
discussion and I don't want to encourage
disability gatekeeping. So, no, my main
disabling condition is that I have over
25 hours in my day.
[Jeremy] What?
and you should be producing more, not
less! You're hyper-able! A turbo-normie,
if you will.
[Leslie] No. Let me explain. It's called Non-24 Sleep-Wake Disorder. Every day my sleep
time moves ahead 1 or 2 sometimes as
much as 3 or 4 hours.
I can't reliably predict these shifts so,
today I might be going to sleep at 8
p.m. and by next week I may be falling
asleep
anywhere from 11 p.m. to 11 a.m.
Basically it's impossible for me to keep
any semblance of a schedule. Now it would
be ridiculous to expect society to
accommodate these insane hours when an
estimated 99.95% of people in the world
operate on a 24 hour day. No one wants to
hold a business conference at 11 p.m.
one week and 5 a.m. the next, especially
not for the sake of a single employee. So
the Minority Model of disability doesn't
worked here. There are no reasonable
accommodations if, say, I wanted to work
as a cashier or waitress. Employers can't
have an employee who just shows up
whenever they want and can't fit in the
schedule. And I've had no luck with the
Medical Model because science still
hasn't figured out a way for me to adapt
to a 24-hour schedule. And if a drug were
invented that worked for me, would it
even be a good idea to take something
that could potentially have any number
of side-effects, and maybe even shorten
my life, for the sake of fitting into a
24 hour world? Even if I had no
comorbidities or chronic pain, simply
operating on a different time frame than
everyone else disqualifies me for most
jobs in existence. The medical model says
that's my neurological disorder's fault
and the minority model says that society's
fault for not accommodating me. But the
social model of disability derived from
labor relations posits that: "by focusing
on caring so-called abnormalities
and segregating those who could not be cured into the administrative category of
"disabled," medicine cooperated in shoving
less exploitable workers out of the
mainstream workforce."
So the social model of disability deri-
*stammers incoherently*
I'M SORRY
Hang on.
Can we rebrand? Personally, I like the
term "less exploitable," can we do that
instead?
l e s s  e x p l o i t a b l e
So the less exploitable model
posits that a difference in condition is
not even medicalized as a disability
until it interferes with one's ability
to do labor. Basically, "disabled" really
just means dis-able to work full-time.
Non-24 isn't inherently harmful
to my health, but it is something that
severely affects my ability to work.
Because I can't work on anyone's
schedule but my own I am unemployable,
less exploitable, and, therefore, disabled.
So you can see how the minority model
might be flawed since no other minority
group is defined by their inability to
work, but instead by their systemic lack
of access to opportunity which only
creates the perception of being less
able to work. Obviously an argument can
be made that there would be fewer people
even classified as "disabled" if simple
cost-effective accommodations were
standard. Let me be clear:
I'm not anti accommodation. I'm pro-
figuring out what the hell to do with
the fact that accommodations aren't good
business practice.
Unlike other underprivileged minority
groups, disabled people not only need
acceptance, education, and resources, but
also accommodations. Accommodations which
put the burden of cost on the employer
and eat into profit margins. The reality
is that we, the disabled, don't have
separate but equal skills in a free
market economy. If we did, this model
asserts, then we wouldn't even be called
"disabled." The problem isn't workplaces
lacking accommodations, it's capitalism
and the free market.
[Jeremy] Jeeeeeesus. You can't
blame capitalism for everything. There
are jobs you can do anytime from home.
You seem to be good with words, why not
be a professional wo-writer?
[Leslie] You're good at video games why aren't you a
professional gamer, Jeremy?
[Jeremy] I'm too busy with my *real* job.
what's your excuse?
[Leslie] *sigh* In order to do either unskilled or skilled labor i'd have to have very
understanding coworkers, great social
connections to even get the job, and/or
highly specialized skills. These things
are all pretty fucking hard to come by
when you're isolated from the larger
world. I was lucky enough to have a
college education, but it's common for
people with disabilities to not even
finish high school. However, I
homeschooled for high school and took all
my college courses online. So I don't
have any professional contacts. I don't
know any teachers or professors or even
the other students in my classes. Due to
this social exclusion, there are a lot of
things which are common knowledge that I
don't know about or only understand in
theory. Like handshakes. Seriously, I've
given about five handshakes in my entire
life. And I can't even know what things I
don't know I don't know!
[Jeremy] Okay, but what about highly specialized skills? You can
freelance!
[Leslie] Ok ok but why the fuck should
disabled people be expected to hone
highly specialized skills when
able-bodied people can get by without?
Story time: I made a friend in a support
group for non-24 who used to live
independently as freelance graphic
designer prior to developing this
disorder. They are highly trained and
highly skilled, but once they couldn't
make it to appointments, they couldn't
make a living. Often, it doesn't matter
how good you are at something. If you
can't show up or communicate in a timely
or acceptable manner then you're not
getting as much work as someone who can--
even if you're more talented.
[Jeremy] but The ADA-
oh yeah the ADA ugh the ADA mmm the ADA
Do you honestly think we live in a world where all workplaces are totally
accessible now because the ADA made
employers promise  they would try harder?
Hitler promised not to invade Czechoslovakia, Jeremy. Welcome to the real world.
The ADA was passed 30 years ago and the
unemployment rate for people with
disabilities has. not. changed.
In 2014, only 16.8% of people with disabilities were employed. Certainly many workers who
may be considered disabled are just as
capable of anyone else and ultimately
cost the same as any other employee. But
employers and insurance companies only
see the risks which come with a
pre-existing condition. Ignoring, of
course, that any number of their
able-bodied employees may have costly
invisible disabilities.
[Jeremy] Okay but I still don't really see how losing sleep is an
issue. You just don't want to work. You're
blaming capitalism for something that
you need to just get used to. I never
sleep.
[Leslie] LISTEN. listen. l i s t e n
I don't want to have this conversation where I have to show you my medical records and explain
that sleep deprivation is literally a
form of torture. I just don't. I don't
feel like using any more time in this
video justifying myself and I think this
is partly what keeps so many disabled
people from entering the public
discourse. There's a fear that you're not
disabled enough or it's not in the right
ways, that people will blame you or pity
you or treat you as if you have no value.
That people won't listen to what you say
because they only care about your misery
porn or fixing you enough to get a job
or hearing your
~inspirational story~
Which reminds me, I have an inspirational
anti-capitalist quote that I want to read.
[Jeremy] Ugh can we stop talking about
capitalism?
[Leslie] Let's just see if you can guess who said it.
*Ahem*
 
 
*"State Anthem of the Soviet Union" fades in*
☭*"State Anthem of the Soviet Union" fades in* ☭
☭☭*"State Anthem of the Soviet Union" fades in* ☭ ☭
☭☭☭*"State Anthem of the Soviet Union"*☭☭☭
☭☭☭☭*"State Anthem of the Soviet Union"*☭☭☭☭
☭☭☭☭☭☭ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
[Jeremy] God, I don't know. Can you people stop talking about the end of capitalism as
an inevitability? You sound like an edgelord.
[Leslie] It's Helen Keller. And no. Did you
know there was an FBI case file on her
due to her un-American Socialist
rhetoric and organizing activities? Link
in the description. Leaving school, all I
knew about Helen Keller, aside from her
disabilities, is that she knew the sign
for water. Why is that?
[Jeremy] Uh because what she
said is leftist propaganda.
[Leslie] Granted, the lack of nuanced discussion may be more of a problem with our education system
and less of a problem with how we use
disabled people to propagate the myth of
"pulling yourself up by your own
bootstraps."
But I'd propose there are several
cognitive and cultural biases working
against an accurate public perception of
Comrade Helen and people with
disabilities in general.
[Jeremy] like what?
[Leslie] Well I think that might take more than one
video. But the first bias I'd like to dig
into is the Just World Theory because it
kind of sets the stage for the others.
In a study done by Lerner in Simmons in
1966, 72 undergrads were subjected to
watching a video of a girl who appeared
to receive severe and painful shocks
every time she got an answer on a test
wrong. As the video went on, it became
clear that the undergrads could do
nothing to help her and that these
shocks would continue into a second
session. So how did these people confront
powerlessness in the face of another
person's suffering? Simple: they devalued
the girl. If a guilty person is being
tortured then that's okay, right? (No it's
not okay but I don't have time to talk
about that right now.)
[Jeremy] That's messed up. I'd never do that.
[Leslie] I'm not here to force you into introspection, but remember how after I told you that I
can't work you responded by claiming
that I *could* in fact work even though
you had pretty limited information on my
life and my conditions? This propensity
to blame someone for something they
can't control is often called "Victim
Blaming" and probably every person
familiar with the #metoo movement knows the
term. I prefer "Just World Theory" in this
context though because many people with
what are considered disabilities don't
consider themselves victims or even
necessarily disabled. It's not uncommon
for deaf people to say that they
pretty much just speak a different language. The term "Just World Theory" focuses on the
biased person's own perception of the
world as fair in the ways they deem
appropriate. For instance, seeing the idea of being
deaf as a loss of hearing rather than
being capital D Deaf as an identity. This
way we don't unfairly label said Deaf
person a victim. So basically if you
start with the assumption that the world
is fair, god is good, Karma exists,
Hail Satan,
spit in my mouth mommy
then this can
be really great for your own self-esteem.
It can give you a sense of control, which
can be a really positive thing. But what
happens when that control is challenged
by an existential threat? Like someone
with a disability... existing... near you
MENACINGLY
Well, now you have to either decide the person
deserved what's perceived as an illness
because they're less valuable
-yikes- or they're conditioned somehow
adds to their life and they're actually
normal! But not just normal, extra super
special, deeply meaningful, differently-abled,
~inspirational~
So we talk about the story of the kid who
learned to communicate despite being
deaf and blind
~inspirational~
and don't mention anything that might be
polarizing about her life. Anything that
might just show that not only was Helen
Keller a full-grown adult with opinions of her own
~infantilization~
but that those opinions, to
some people, were bad and could hurt
public perception of people with
disabilities.
Knowing that Helen Keller was a
socialist is enough for some people to
tip the scales from "she was extra super
duper special" back to "she fucking deserved it."
Basically, it's bad optics. It's bad for the brand.
But I think we need to make
room in The Discourse.
Obviously, a large part of the problem of how we perceive people with disabilities as victims is
how we measure value in a capitalist
society.
[Jeremy] Of course, it all comes back to capitalism.
[Leslie] But, really, what can be done
about the fact that it's not profitable
to employ disabled workers? Especially
considering that there are already not
enough jobs for able ones. I'm not going
to pretend like it's any different. I
know when it comes to both the labor
market and video making,
I have low production value.
[Jeremy] Come on, you just don't want to work.
[Leslie] Of course I want to work! Do you think I like having no organizing force in my life and being
crushed by existential dread on a daily
basis?
It's not... ideal
I can feel a desire for work and still
understand that it would be a
nonsensical business move for someone to hire me full-time. That has nothing to do
with my work ethic or self-confidence
and everything to do with my confidence
in the free market. Maybe a lot of us
less exploitables can't work a full 40
hours a week. But, if given the resources
to survive and educate ourselves, we can
absolutely contribute in meaningful ways.
If our society was structured in a way
that we only did the work that needed to
be done and extra work was optional then
I'm not really sure how many people
would even be considered "disabled."
Could we finally, genuinely, then call people
"differently abled" or will this always be
a dysphemism? Of course, there are people
who will always need carers and people
who will not be able to do any amount of
physical or intellectual labor. But
without the need for everyone to work
then I wonder if people would be quicker
to recognize these individuals as added
value rather than added burden. And
please don't get upset at my use of the
word "burden" here. Because, currently,
that's what I am in this society. I don't
want to sit here and pretend like it's different.
I want society to be different.
I'm currently not only a financial burden
but an existential one. Families can
become homeless caring for children with
disabilities-- especially children with
disabilities unrecognized by the state.
Families skip meals and make huge
sacrifices because they can see the
human value in individuals who aren't
valued by the free market. Unfortunately,
for countless people with disabilities,
many families don't see their value
outside of the free market or aren't
willing to make those sacrifices and
instead abuse them, kill them, or leave them to die.
Knowing there are people who
think the world might be better if you
were dead, can really take a toll on a
person's self-esteem, to say the least.
But I think it's better to face this
reality and discuss its causes rather
than cover it up and social taboos and
polite language and hope it'll go away.
Superficial analysis only leads to
superficial solutions.
I'm sure it's totally safe to have that
sort of serious life-or-death discussion
here. People never receive death threats,
not on the internet! I can know,
intellectually, that it's okay to enjoy
life and spend time with people I love
doing things that I love without the
crushing guilt of not producing anything
of market value. But it's hard to
recondition myself to accept that just
because I don't have labor value I do
still have human value.
Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, over 16 million Americans have lost their jobs at the time of
writing this video. Yet society hasn't
collapsed. People can still receive
medical care. Houses haven't disappeared.
Food hasn't disappeared. We still have
all the same resources. The only problem
is that people are prevented access to
these resources due to our economic
system. Our system is founded on the
false and dangerous idea that every
person has to work full-time, even if
they're just standing outside flipping a
sign around for 40 hours a week, when
they could be doing something that
contributes meaningfully to society,
something that they might enjoy. And--
what's worse-- the idea that people should
be punished if they *don't* work full time.
That if we didn't punish people for this
then there would be no doctors or
farmers or scientists that no one
desires to do work, help society, or
expand human knowledge without payment.
Explain the existence of fanfiction.
With the rise of automation, more and more
people will not need to work. Already,
there's no need for the 40-hour workweek.
I hope with this channel we can all
explore how to define value outside of
the capitalist labor market together.
And remember, there's no shame in being less exploitable.
