Dialectical materialist critique of the systematic alienation, exploitation and capitalisation of disability in the workplace

When taking a naturalist and dogmatic stance on the chronic perpetuation of outdated and ableist ideals regarding the integration of the disabled population within society, what can be made apparent is the overriding prevalence of Marx's theory on alienation put into practice. This can be reflected on through recognising the common view that one's position in society is largely determined by their ability to engage with the "reciprocal influences amongst government" which would supposedly related to their involvement in "the economy, social classes, state, and status groups" present within a  capitalist society (Oliver, 1999), these all being things which would put disabled people into an increasingly marginalised position, and a supposedly lower status and level of influence on the society in which they coexist amongst others. Observing the inability for the disabled population to effectively integrate within society in this way, appears to be very obviously discriminatory and ableist, as well as ultimately further proving that existing capitalist systems are clearly failing to adequately support and equitably meet the needs of large demographics. It id through this that one can establish a dialectical materialist critique on the issues posed by disability discrimination, as applied to the constant existing foundations of society which develop individuals (this clearly linking back on much left Hegelian dialect regarding support for a naturalist approach to working around continuity of these being used to the advantage of many revolutionaries).

The significant alienation of the disabled population under capitalism can be observed through the prevalence of recurrent commodity fetishism within the workplace with regard to the way they are regarded as workers [or, as Marx considered, “alienable, saleable objects in thrall to egoistic need and huckstering" (Marx, 1844)], by which various aspects of their disabilities can be seen as able to effectively humanise labour and thus influence the role of workers in operating the multiple facets to a functioning capitalist society, as well as how this may also potentially affect perceptions on the social and emotional dimension to the labour they partake in, especially considering that the human relations within production are not influenced by the workers themselves. This can be noticed with the explanation Marx gives of this line of reasoning in the first chapter of Volume 1 of Capital:

“Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour-power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products"- Marx, 1867.

When considering the more human and socially driven value of labour in the operation of society, one can very clearly realise the lack of regard for the emotional and personal cost of labour, which many fail to grasp in an economy driven by productivity and the formation of a workforce made up of the most efficient workers, this also being advocated for and observed in similar patterns in education, therefore making intrinsic forms of ableism become significantly more evident yet less identifiable within society in the many forms in which it takes. This links closely what Marx clearly highlights in his description of commodity fetishism, in that this ableism and favouring of the most economically productive workers in maintaining an effectively functioning economy appears to somewhat objectify the workers and make them seem somewhat akin to commodities, with the point by which humanisation (in its crude form) is observed for them being when disabled workers are integrated within the workplace. This, however, is said flippantly in that greater empathy and understanding is unlikely to be something that is valued as much under this system, which advocates a laissez faire approach to dealing with issues that may not be of mutual benefit to their individual interests.

However, it must be said that there needs to be considerable advancement in the means by which said disability is classified, along with careful assessment of existing dialogues on the matter with regard to how these may come across as demeaning and not entirely representative of the multitude of struggles that disabled people endure within this failing society, thus in turn further proving to exacerbate the issues of alienation described that needs to be acted upon. This can be seen through the clear flaws and lack of nuance in defining disability based off the perspectives outlined in the biomedical model on disability, which had for a long time acted as the standardised means of deciding practises by which to assist the integration of the disabled population within the workplace. This approach views disability as  the "physical, sensory and intellectual injuries and impairments, understood as abnormalities, such as the result of dysfunctions in some part of the body" that make an individual "incapacitated" and thus in need of rehabilitation to allow for them to function effectively in society (Gomes et. al, 2019). The main obvious issues with this approach is that it confines disability and the difficulties it poses to being constrained to within one's own body, and completely disregards the external issues that many disabled people would face in relation to the social barriers or the inability to work in conjunction with others in the same way, which would thus prove to encourage oppression and exclusion for this demographic, and act as a major hindrance to their integration in society. This is what the social model of disability set about to recognise and intended to resolve, as well as recognise the biological nature and irresolvable characteristics of many disabilities, and thus act against the polarisation of many in society as a result of this. It is with reference to this that one must reflect on the importance of the valuing of disabled workers and their individual needs and struggles as, not merely the means of stimulating revolutionary activity within the workplace, but the means by which they can function as not just an asset to the workplace, but an integral member of society with rights and responsibilities- these not being determined purely by previous perceptions on disability.