In this episode of the Veil of Ignorance, Teague and I discuss Marxism with Cale Holmes and Kevin Salvatore. I believe this topic honestly requires more episodes, since it’s impossible to cover everything in one episode. Nonetheless, we tried and it was most definitely a lot of fun.
The excellent chart from the article below shows where different Leftists lie on a graph with 2 axes: x = suspicion <—> solidarity. y = Ethical <—> Structural. Suspicion means one doesn’t believe that we could come together to solve problems. Structural means that one doesn’t believe a person’s individual actions ever make a difference. It’s adequately complex, for Liberals do not live in the same house. Seems like I’m a plain re-distribution, social welfare liberal. Neither nihilistic nor radical.
The chart that shows different kinds of privileges merit some ridicule. Sure, they exist, but some of them deserve little attention, such “ageism” or “Pro-natalism”. If you’re 5 years old, you need to listen to your parents. If you’re 75 and can’t remember anything, you shouldn’t be teaching. Or, if you’re 68 and spout racist/sexist crap, you should be the last to raise a child alone. Now, Pro-natalism. Who asks another person whether they’re fertile or not? When it does happen, it uncannily resembles sexism. When men cannot reproduce, they don’t face as many trials as women do. Moving on. “Ableism”. They’re persons. Don’t take away their welfare! Discriminating based on disabilities can be ugly, especially amongst children, but some things cannot be avoided. One cannot compete against other basketball players with paralyzed legs. One cannot expect the population to suddenly find those with down syndrome to attract boys like Angelina Jolie. It’s not as flexible as race. When Black males have more power, we see them attracting millions on stages. The same cannot be said about disabilities. It’s difficult to acquire power to begin with. Lastly, “Elitism”. I have a problem with this label, because it isn’t as heinous as the other ones. You leave mathematics to a credentialed mathematician. It works. When the rare ones pop out, it’s due to the availability of credentialed works. However, debates can be ungodly when intellectuals are pit against the layman. In spite of this horror, I stand by Reason, because intellectual progress has served us well. By simply making knowledge digestible, available, and approachable, the horror tempers. One can allow living wage; expect small hospital bills; abolish racism, sexism, and classism; with the yearning of intellectual progress. Even skeptics of Reason come from thinkers; they always fall under a certain mode of thought, of intellect, and knowledge.
Postscript: As it is apparent in the post, my argument for Ableism is the weakest, for it is the trickiest one. Ableism is universally heinous like sexism and racism, but it is not identically heinous. Many of its specters lie within ignorance of the human body and health. The problem for a blind person isn’t necessarily, “Why am I treated like someone less than I am capable of?” It’s more along the lines of, “I don’t think these people know how to live as a blind person. Look at the buildings and stairs they make.” However, racism and sexism do not need further knowledge of the human body galore. Our current knowledge is sufficient to arrive to the conclusion, “We should treat each other fairly. We know many ways to do so. Therefore, we should adopt them” The question is how do we get there by fighting injustices, whereas, Ableism is a bit more complex. “Should we treat some disabilities differently from others? Does the definition of fairness change by different disabilities? How should we arrive there? Do we face more ignorance or injustices as obstacles?”