Labour’s onslaught against disability benefits raises questions about how disability is formed under capitalism, and the nature of a socialist alternative, argues Elly Badcock

This week has seen a monumental attack on disabled people from the Labour Party, with Wes Streeting claiming there is an ‘overdiagnosis’ of mental-health issues, and Liz Kendall asserting that only the most severe ‘cases’ (also known as people) will be able to access disability benefits.

Talk of the most ‘severe cases’ plays into an age-old dichotomy between deserving and non-deserving disabled people, generally placing those with physical disabilities such as spinal fractures and lower-limb differences at the top, and those with mental-health conditions and poorly-researched conditions prevalent amongst women (e.g. fibromyalgia and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome) at the bottom.

The term ‘deserving’ is not a throwaway figure of speech; the way we talk about disability matters. Voloshinov, a key Marxist theorist on the intersection of language and society, argued that language does not exist in a social vacuum but is an absolutely critical part of the relationship between the economic and social ‘base’ of society, and the ‘superstructure’ that keeps society operating. This relationship is maintained by ideology, described by Gramsci as a ‘terrain’ of practices, principles, and dogmas that influence how individuals behave in a social and economic context. In layman’s terms, when we talk about the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ disabled person, when this is splashed across newspaper frontpages and on morning talk shows, we actually contribute materially to a society where some groups of disabled people are seen as less deserving.

Social model

The current scrutiny and stigma over mental health and neurodiversity in particular shows an exceptionally poor understanding of the social model of disability. Developed in the 1980s by disabled activists including Mike Oliver, this is a vital way for socialists to begin understanding disability in a Marxist context. The model was developed in opposition to the previously prevailing ‘medical model’ of disability, which views disability as something inherent in a person, and which can be ‘fixed’ by changes to the person. For example, medical procedures such as operations, prosthetics, therapy, and so on.

The social model of disability instead posits that people are not inherently disabled; rather, they are disabled by the physical and social environment surrounding them. For example, a wheelchair user is no longer disabled in a society where every building has a ramp and wheelchair-accessible toilet, every bus has multiple spaces for wheelchair users, and professional carers are provided by the state, free of charge, for any care-support needs. An autistic person is no longer disabled by society when every workplace makes reasonable adjustments such as changes to lighting and sound levels, and when neurotypical communication styles are not broadly expected of everyone. This is the model adopted without exception by the trade-union movement, and the lack of understanding of this in the Labour party signifies its ongoing withdrawal from progressive politics.

The Labour Party’s current position also overlooks the key role that capitalism plays in causing mental-health issues and exacerbating the struggles neurodiverse people face. For example, 6/10 workers in leading global economies experience workplace stress, with 79% of British employees having experienced workplace stress; 50% of all neurodivergent people have missed work due to stress and lack of support. Workplace stress is a majority experience, and is the norm rather than the exception in society.

Marx was aware of this problem, and spoke at length on alienation and how this affected people on a very deep and pervasive level. The feelings of isolation, disconnection, and being uncertain of one’s place in the world are a key feature of capitalism, not a bug.

Marx explained in 1844 that ‘it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own … The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object.’ The loss of the joy and meaning of life, and of any sense of control and agency over our immediate external worlds, are near-universal experiences of mental ill-health.

Marx elaborates: ‘Thus the more the worker by his labor appropriates the external world … the more he deprives himself of the means of life in two respects: first, in that the sensuous external world more and more ceases to be an object belonging to his labor – to be his labor’s means of life; and, second, in that it more and more ceases to be a means of life in the immediate sense, means for the physical subsistence of the worker.’ In other words, Marx argued that the more we gear our lives towards productivity for profit’s sake, the more we ‘live to work’ rather than ‘work to live’, the more isolated we become from the world around us and the more our own lives take on a dull, repetitive quality.

Ending alienation

This speaks to a deeper level of alienation and dissatisfaction with everyday life than simply workplace stress; the product of our labour being taken from us and turned into profit divorces us from the external world around us, turning the fruits of our labour into the ‘physical subsistence of the worker’. We show up day in, day out, dragging our broken minds and bodies to the factory, the hospital, the university to keep the wheels turning enough that we can stay fed, clothed, housed and alive for another chance to do it all over again tomorrow. It is unthinkable that a system like this could do anything other than produce a deep sense of alienation and despair.

However, to say simply that capitalism causes mental illness does not go far enough. It is true that in a socialist society where profit is no longer the central drive of society, many of the people currently signed off from work due to mental ill health, disability or neurodiversity would likely be able to work. Fitting a wheelchair ramp to an office would no longer be turned down for reasons of profit and business convenience. People with learning disabilities could bring a support worker with them, even if the cost of hiring two people outweighed what they produced.

But this analysis still suggests that the end goal in all cases is to be a productive member of society, working and creating something tangible for the benefit of all. We need to look at what a socialist society could do in creating capable and supportive environments for people who will never ‘recover’ and may never be able to do productive work, e.g. people with severe inherited schizophrenia, profound intellectual disabilities, bipolar disorder, depression or anxiety that is so severe that they cannot ever maintain a ‘normal’ life. Socialism is about freeing people from this normative ideal completely, and doing away with the idea that independence and a payslip of one’s own are the pinnacle of life’s achievements.

In a socialist society, we could look beyond the idea that every person must be fully rehabilitated and ready for productive labour. For example, therapeutic communities, where treatment conditions and rules are decided by the group as a whole, have long been argued to be a more effective method to support people with so-called ‘personality disorder’, but have been largely ignored by an NHS focused on immediate quantifiable results surrounding discharge and employment. We could use land currently reserved for profitable ventures to create secure communities for people so unwell that they will always pose some level of risk to themselves or others. We could free people who need it from the relentless demand to work, work, work; people with severe and enduring bipolar disorder, who often create the art and literature that brings light to society (see Van Gogh, Carrie Fisher, Sylvia Plath) could simply write and create without the profit imperative.

A society free of the capitalist imperative feels extremely far away, whilst many disabled people are now wondering how they will feed, wash and clothe themselves with the current and continued onslaught on their benefits and lives. It is imperative to continue fighting the renewed drive to austerity in this and all forms, and central to this will be joining the People’s Assembly demonstration against ‘Austerity 2.0’ on 7 June, and the ‘We Demand Change’ conference on 29 March. However, truly to empower and support disabled people, it is vital to look beyond a society focused on profit and productive labour, to dream of a future where productivity is not the only hallmark of a life well-lived, and to make that society a reality through socialist politics.