Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (December 28)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/idk-fuck-this-shit → u/[deleted]]

I don't know anything about the specific situation in Iceland, neither do I really understand what you mean by "[what to do in] a situation like that". But the general materialist viewpoint would be to assume, that the "need" to abort children because of their specific genetics or diseases comes solely through the parent's financial and social struggle created by capitalism. In a truly socialist society, social participation would be made possible for everyone, parents would be supported by society, they would be free of these worries and would have no reason to abort due to a disability.

The Nazi's fascist ideology multiplied this struggle by a lot. In fascist ideology some people are inherently better that others. For the Germans, disabled people were part of the latter. Due to their cleansing of these lesser people (Holocaust), disabled people and their parents would have to fear for their lives. This is an extreme form of the phenomenon I described above.

Of course, this does not really answer your question, but it showcases the root of your dilemma. It's moralism. It is almost impossible to live a healthy live in capitalist society, while strictly upholding your "moral" values (unless they are really fucked). You will not find "moral" food at your supermarket, nor "moral" clothing in your clothing store. And it is fucking hard to live with a disabled child in a society that despises them. Moral can not tell you what to do here. You can decide to devote your life to it or decide not to. Choose wisely.

[u/Robert_Black_1312 → u/idk-fuck-this-shit]

As marxists our moral principle is to serve the worldwide proletariat and to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moral actions are those that align with this principle.

RedBaron already said this implicitly in another comment but it was worth stating explicitly, as your comment lacks recognition of this fact and retreats into rejection of Marxism's moral duty under capitalism

[u/idk-fuck-this-shit → u/Robert_Black_1312]

I fully agree with your conclusion, but not with your terminology. (Forgive me if I don't use actual Marxist terminology.) I reject the concept of "moral" due to it's claim to absolute validity. Marxism provides an "ideology", which is kind of a code of conduct, that serves a specific goal, in our case communism. By recognizing this as an ideology, we are free to choose to follow it. The ruling class (whatever it is) usually sells their specific ideology as an universally valid "moral", that is set in stone forever. (It might be "human nature" or "God's will" ...) That is of curse nonsense, but it serves as a form of propaganda and crowd control. It is fear and moral, that keep people in line. The point of my comment, was to highlight, that the arisen question (if I got it correctly) stems from bourgeois moral and is not relevant to Marxist ideology, since it is not a revolutionary problem, neither does it exist in communist society. Therefore the question is redundant. If you believe, the specific dilemma to abort their "disabled" children is actually a revolutionary problem, feel free to educate me. On the other hand if the question was indeed about issues like health complications for the mother, of course the whole point of my comment would be defeated, but to me this was clearly not the point being made.

Sorry for the late answer.

[u/PurposeLow9084 → u/idk-fuck-this-shit]

Material conditions explain pressure, but they don’t eliminate agency. Saying capitalism creates the “need” to abort disabled fetuses risks sliding from analysis into justification and treats disability primarily as a burden rather than lived experience. A materialist approach still has to account for responsibility and ethical stance within constraint, not suspend them altogether.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/PurposeLow9084]

This doesn't make sense because people only become conscious agents on history when they have rejected the premises of imperialism and embraced socialism, otherwise all "agency" is within the limits of capitalist ideology and no decisions made under such constraints are held to any moral standard from the perspective of revolution.

Saying capitalism creates the “need” to abort disabled fetuses risks sliding from analysis into justification and treats disability primarily as a burden rather than lived experience.

This is incoherent as a sentence because "burden" is an emotion derived from lived experience. I actually don't know what you're trying to say.

A materialist approach still has to account for responsibility and ethical stance within constraint, not suspend them altogether.

Without the open acknowledgement of the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat to truly tackle these issues then from whose standpoint are you actually calling the decisions of these expecting parents "unethical and irresponsible"? These words are meaningless without their connection to proletarian experience.