askchapo

I think this really is it. A sex worker (to use one example )can become part of a mass movement, but if they do so outside of literal armed conflict their participation doesn't actively compromise the system. They can, by joining an organization, perhaps participate in solidarity and eventually acts of praxis and violence, but opposed to workers shutting down factories it really is night and day.

If every sex worker were organized it would be a better world. But compared to organizing every McDonald's worker (where their mass withholding of labor would be noticeable at scale and strike terror in the heart of the average burger lander), it's less potent organizing when you're talking about destroying the system.

I should be clear - this is not to be the Taylor Lorenz straw man about disabled people. Instead, it's a recognition that to capitalism, the disabled (when without work) are not "worth" what a productive worker is. They can provide visibility, solidarity, and participate in violence, but they don't ever have the potential to threaten the system the way an organized working class can. If every disabled person marched tomorrow there might be headlines, but absent solidarity from labor nothing would fundamentally change