That was a shitty thing to do. Seriously, guys, we can disagree with women without calling them crazy out of the gate.
And let me say this again so EVERYONE can hear: disability is essential to your movements. You will never raise a movement for the people if you exclude disability. Period. Period. Disability is one of the magic rings, bros, we gotta have all of 'em, not just the ones we like.
Per my recent posts, this is a problem of prefiguration.
Namely, the configuration of our movements, the configuration of our advocacy, is so stuck in the rut of 19th century theory that it prefigures ignorance of disability at its core.
Without 21st century theory, to meet 21st century lived experiences, prefiguring disability among other issues as core to doctrine and praxis, we'll continue to watch so called "human-centered" movements fail. Such anachronisms cannot win out.
I guess this is because in 19th century European society, like 21st century society in much of the world, people with disabilities were so integrated that there was no need to talk about us as a separate group
Before modern medicine, pretty much everybody was disabled, one way or another
Counterpoint, the way Marx defined the lumpenproletariat in many respects expresses a disdain for disabled folk (such as disabled veterans of the French wars), who Marx deemed to only show up in politics as tools of reactionary forces, so to "be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society".
Modern medicine aside, the workerism of 19th century theory glorifies one's exploitation as wage labor, this being the marker of revolutionary virtue, leaving everyone else as a "parasitic group" that "could not normally play a progressive role in history", thus "could not play a positive role in society".
Every time a Leftist complains that concern for disability or some other marginalized category is "splitting the movement", they are echoing sentiments of Marx (and likely many of his contemporaries who we might presume held similar opinion of those not abled enough to be targets of union organizing, which is to say targets of "class-consciousness").
Everyone may have been disabled, but not everyone was disabled in a way that marked them as lumpen. Marx invented a separate group for the express purpose of talking shit about them.
That said, even without Marx talking shit (which, let's be honest, was how he made a name for himself among his contemporaries, let alone now), your point regarding a shift in the sociotechnical realities (this to be distinguished from sociotechnical imaginaries, in accordance with what follows below) of the past two centuries still stands.
We do not live in 19th century Europe. The material realities of our present history are markedly different. Heck, the material realities of 19th century Usia were markedly different than those of 19th century Europe. Yet our social theory wants to be ahistorical and to transcend social geography, to be a univocal commentary on naturalized power relations.
This being a monological commitment that even Marx couldn't sustain. Hence his having stuck Grundrisse in a drawer rather than publish. Having identified communal ownership and communal management of resources in medieval societies, he decided to just not talk about those exceptions to his grand theory of history.
Best not confuse the cause with facts.
Yet it is facts that define the territory our Korzybskian maps would help us navigate. When facts on the ground change, such as transformations of how we enact and are enacted by medicine (cf. Mol), this reterritorializes our lived experiences. We can't keep navigating with a Rand-McNally road atlas from the other side of two centuries.
Marc "ACAB" Godin
sport of sacred spherical cows
NilaJones