I mean they managed to do queer capitalism. I think, ultimately, logically, of course its possible to do disabled capitalism, because there are loads of those ideologies in the blind community, you see with foresight (code for entrepreneur)
the issue is that capital is hitting its ultimate productive limits. I don't think, short of another total war, it will be possible to reabsorb labour relative to that being expelled without A) a sliding scale of wages and B) a reduction in labour hours to something like 10-15 hours a week. ultimately this is counter-intuitive to a capitalist. it costs less money to employ someone for 48 hours a week than three people for 15, even if the same amount (or more) of a given commodity can be produced. unsold commodities are destroyed, after all. murder of the dead. without destruction of value capitalism will not work.
This is why I hated, (absolutely despised really) certain marxists and radical feminists for going all terf-y and making transgender a question of identity and insecure men or whatever such gobshite it is these days. It mostly turned out to be the absolute height of ignorance to not realise that trannies like us cis disabled crewdem are also under the constant choakhold of being made surplus population. Given you want to feminise men and obliterate masculinity, not seeing how gendered labour perpetuates this, separation is, well, it's basically a convergence with the far right isn't it? If class is defined as those with pussy havers, it's so vague as to inhere nationalist and ethnocentric sentiments, it sifts the terrain of class as something to be upheld rather than the class that abolishes classes through its socialisation. All you then say is certain women have a right to dominate other women but that's not exploitation because all women are a class. yes, this is a crude reading of that position but i honestly don't think it deserves much more attention. and of course the gender essentialism comes into it, black men are identical to white men etc...
Like i said late last year, and last im saying on this topic for now...
Why is 'gender critical' not abusive whilst 'TERF' is? I think every person not embroiled in academic feminist discourse would define themselves as being critical of gender as expressed modally within class societies. But terf is quite accurate to describe 'gender critical' people because it expresses crap 19th century biological determinism disguised as materialism with stalinist diamat overtones and racist 20th century anthro. It might have been devised as a slur but that doesn't make it abusive if its a completely accurate descriptor.
scratch a left terf enough and you'll find that they've abandoned class politics in favour of new labour communitarianism. apparently a homogenous 'trans community' should fund shelters with their 'wealth'. and there goes the putrid stench of class and the evocation of a policy that has failed time and time again. deserving vs undeserving poor, 21st century antipolitics version.
Such a shallow view of the state isn't it. 'males being registered as women will throw criminal figures out of wack'
As if the rozzers monitor crimes, rather than inventing them.