Is being a capitalist autism advocate a contradiction?

Post Reply New Topic

Among the many facets of the pro-autism community there is the opinion that capitalism and meritocracy (the practice of giving more to people with the most qualifications) are the main problems faced by autistics, and disabled people in general. Many who support that opinion advocate a socialism political/economic system and a society built on an egalitarian ideology. (Egalitarianism is the belief that it is better to make things more equal across the board. For example, having more skills should not lead to a better quality of life, individual welfare, or higher level of resources at that individual's disposal.) Other parts of the pro-autism movement reject this idea, instead saying that capitalism is fine, but that people need to more accurately estimate the capabilities of autistics and need to more accurately gauge when an accommodation is less of an inconvenience to the business/institution than it is a convenience to the (usually disabled) individual.

In my opinion, this question is more divisive than most members of the pro-autism community realize.

Where do you stand on this issue?

I don't see how capitalism in itself would really be good for the autism community, the only thing that matters in capitalism is the profit. Now with some regulations it can become a bit more worker friendly due to safety regulations and rules against mistreating employees....I'd say a mixed economy can work alright, but that includes capitalistic and socialist features. I certainly would not be bothered by a more socialist system than we have now, but I can certainly settle for mixed economy with sufficient regulations to prevent employee abuse, exploitation and dangerous work places and/or lack of proper equipment for working more dangerous jobs.

Obviously, we'd want some regulations to protect the disabled... but the USA (the paradigmatic capitalist country) many such regulations exist, and many could be added without overthrowing the system. For those of us who live here, I think we're better off with stability and can't see the revolution required to reach straight-out socialism being healthy for us.

My personal views are probably aligned with Canada economically which is still pretty capitalist but not as much as the USA.

If we can get a job in our special interest, we can often win in a meritocracy or at least succeed - we likely won't ever be a CEO but we can be an engineering earning well into the 6 digits or a surgeon specializing in one complex operation.

I think making unnecessary requirements for being pro-autism also alienates certain potential allies: someone could be a fairly strong capitalist but support regulations to help the disabled, however, saying "we don't like capitalists" alienates him.

Leaving aside the many inherent flaws of capitalism, I think the main way it works against people with autism is through cronyism. Getting a good job in too many sectors is based on having social contacts instead of skill.
Personally I think the corporate structure is at fault, as it encourages patronage and reward people who can say what their boss wants to hear.
Some forms of socialism wouldn't be much better, but I think if corporate hierarchies had less power over their companies, the situation would be improved.