EDIT: I appreciate the responses to this question. I would encourage people to keep this discussion going if they feel as though they have something substantive to add.
Hello chapos! I've been lurking for like the past month (after lurking the original chapo subreddit for years before that) and feel the need to get this issue off my chest anonymously before asking my IRL comrades about it.
Y'all are hardened Marxists around here, so I feel like it might be useful to ask about this, hoping for a brutally honest answer. What does accessibility for people with invisible disabilities and neurodivergent people look like in the early stages of a socialist revolution? I've heard demands like "the revolution will be made accessible" before but as an aspie who's lived his entire life in the belly of the beast (i.e. Murrika) I find it extremely difficult to imagine a wartime socialist economy - i.e. one subject to constant siege in the form of sanctions, blockades, psyops, and other Cold War bullshit - making any such accommodations when literally everyone (except maybe party members, assuming revisionist leadership) is living close to subsistence already. I suspect people with physical disabilities and retirees who spent a lifetime busting their asses would and probably should get first priority.
Under these conditions, the able-bodied workers who keep our borderline-lumpen asses alive could easily democratically decide to throw us into mental hospitals or gulags unless or until we provide at least as much in labor value as we consume in order to survive (and our living costs tend to be greater than that of the average worker because of the extra labor necessary to provide healthcare, so all but the most productive among this group are deadweights). Obviously the communist ideal would be an automated post-scarcity form in which each gets what they need rather than just what they produce, but that's a very long-term goal almost certainly not reachable in our lifetimes. A successful revolution in the US and North America would, extrapolating from 2020's objective conditions, necessarily result from the subjective factor eventually catching up to accelerating and highly advanced imperial decay and the exponentially increasing challenges coming from global warming, with the American and Anglo capitalists likely going literally scorched-earth as a final fuck you once they lose (probably featuring nukes and other spiteful irreversible acts of ecocidal terrorism) and leaving little left for a socialist US to start developing itself with and too many mouths to feed.
I'm willing to suffer chronic burnout and exhaustion for the revolution if that's what it takes, even if it's worse than what I deal with now. However, dying for revolution under these probable hellish conditions seems like a more attractive option - I would be spared the suffering of living close to starvation in a dying world, and more resilient comrades eager to push forward and do the thankless tiresome work of rebuilding for the benefit of future generations would be relieved of the burden of one deadweight sad-sack slowing them down.
Have I reached rational conclusions here based on current objective conditions and the historical realities of attempted large-scale socialist experiments in the USSR, PRC, etc.?
I was operating under the pessimistic assumption that the American bourgeois would continue their siege from elsewhere in the Anglosphere, Europe, Russia or China (more likely the former two than the latter).
Perhaps, but a lot of that currently comes from economic pressure applied to those countries by the US. The capacity for force projection by the US military has far reaching and cascading effects on how other countries do foreign policy.
Am I underestimating the capacity of a US leadership in exile to continue even the subversive CIA/MI6 shit? They could also still at the very least use French and Turkish nukes to threaten a workers' North American state if revolution doesn't happen in those countries first.
I honestly don't know just trying to provide some optimism. I think they would have far less economic incentive to fuck with us aside from actual invasion, which would also be costly.
I may have forgotten what a massive morale boost a successful socialist uprising in the US would have for socialists in the entire rest of the world. Successful revolution means a significant fraction of the US military necessarily deserts the brass to defend the American working class. But a full-scale civil war would almost certainly involve the pre-revolutionary government taking any number of drastic measures such as invading the Hague, destroying evidence of their wrongdoings abroad, making pre-emptive nuclear strikes on socialist-controlled territories, taking the rest of the world hostage by threatening to cluster-nuke the planet if the American socialists don't stand down, that kind of nasty shit. The end result would most likely be a barely-habitable world torn asunder, an act of destruction that completely smothers any sense of victory the international socialist movement might have otherwise felt. I know the US ruling class would resort to measures like these because this is the same psychopathic government that kept pushing to destabilize the deadlock from mutual deterrence well into the 1980s with shit like the "Star Wars" """missile defense""" program, the same government that walked away from the Kyoto and Paris climate agreements, the same government that routinely flouts international norms and commits war crimes for breakfast. We would need almost every soldier and agent in a critical position to defect and refuse to help commit these sorts of atrocities in order for a socialist America to not look like hell on Earth. That would almost certainly include mercenaries on the payroll of private paramilitary companies with no sense of loyalty to even the American people and who'd be more difficult to demoralize through effective and targeted agitprop.