In a capitalist world, it can be hard to remember this. But despite what you are pressured to think, your value as a person does not come through what material value you create for others.
You must log in or register to comment.
I find the current tone of the comments in this thread rather upsetting. It feels like a lot of people are arguing to refute OPs position that a person’s value is not determined from their material productivity. If this is you, I think you might be in the wrong community. I don’t think this is a point of debate in the simple living community.
To say that a person’s value is derived from their productivity is to say that you do not value the person, but what they produce. This can be interpreted as viewing a person as a Means to any End, rather than an End in themselves. For me, viewing people as Ends in themselves is a foundational pathos of Simple Living. The idea of valuing people, relationships, love, time, above wealth, material, prestige, speed is what simple living is all about!
Well wishes to you all 😊
Agreed, and it’s a problem we need to nip in the bud before it becomes entrenched.
"Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.” Terry Pratchett
I would say the pushback is not about how it should be, but about how it works in reality. Paragons still struggle with bills or working/living conditions while grifters live comfortably. The disconnect makes the “you matter” stuff look like nothing more than a platitude. Maybe that take is cynical, but it’s not without roots.
Particularly worse with all the systems in USA, I’d say it’s much less likely to make individuals feel valued and thus less conducive to simple living. I say that as someone all-but-stranded (semi-rural) in a “this is fine” simple life (I’ve thought about living in an intentional community, but I don’t ever see that working out for me).
In a non-capitalist environment, like living on a commune, you are still valued on your contribution to the community - fixing, building, planting, harvesting, cooking, cleaning, playing music, child care. Even without currency, you need to do something of value to others.
Unless you want to go live on your own. In that case you’re right - you determine your own value. Though I think you may still devalue yourself if you fail to provide for yourself.
But people who cannot do those things are not “valuelesss.” That is ableist and still informed by the Protestant Work Ethic. People can still have value even if they can’t do labour.
People do work in non-capitalist situations for the betterment of the community. The value is not measured by metrics, but by how fulfilled people feel by it.
They probably don’t care, they just said the quiet part out loud - society, and many in it, simply see us (disabled people) as having no value whatsoever and as being nothing but a burden.
A perfect example of why fighting the class war without also fighting all the other oppression capitalism relies on (ableism, racism, sexism, and so on) will never gain equity and equality for all, but only for those already more privileged than others.
Just FYI, I agree that materialist value is not the only value to look for in other people, but “The value is not measured by metrics” doesn’t make sense because metrics are by definition measured.
I’m saying it isn’t measured quantitatively.
While you’re correct, we still need to reevaluate what counts as “value” and how value is quantified. Art is valuable, humor is valuable, empathy is valuable; but these things are generally compensated at a low rate in free market capitalism.
The “capitalism” part of that is the problem. What puts the most resources into the control of the ownership class gets compensated the most (and even then, horribly unfairly). Free markets are fine. Concentration of resources to the ownership class is not.
What does an infant contribute? How about a paralyzed person? How about a developmentally disabled individual? What is the value of an elderly, dementia-stricken grandparent?
I wish I could believe that, but everyone in my life blatantly shows that they only appreciate me when I can do things for them and just tolerate me between useful events.
Sounds like you need some friends, friend. Those aren’t them.
You’re right. I can count on one hand the people who I called friend for the sake of just being friends. Sadly, life eventually pulls us apart.
Take stock in the ones who have reached out with nothing asked of you… the rest, kindly tell them to go outside and play a game of hide and go fuck themselves. It reduces stress in the long term.
Eh, they’re not bad. They’re just normal, self centered people. They’re the default. It’s human nature. The people who do actually care are the ones who decide to be better than average.
The people who decide whether I eat or starve disagree wholeheartedly with you.
Capitalism doesn’t set your value as a human being.
I’m not sure the phrase “value as a human being” even has meaning.
I’m sorry if you don’t feel that human lives have inherent value.
Man, capitalism got me fucked up over this. Is value even the right word? Is value lost when someone dies? What about those who left some part of themselves behind vs those that don’t? Does an artist lead a more valuable life than a ditch digger? Does a ceo lead a more valuable life than an artist? Are all lives equally valuable? Do we all truly have experience to share and beliefs to teach? Maybe. Society has never shown equal value to all, is it a worthy goal to value all life equally? Or is it silly to even make the attempt?
Lots of thoughts on this one that I’m not sure about.
How pithy. What is the unit of measurement for the value of a human? Whatever the unit is, every human is worth exactly 1.0 of them. It’s just not a meaningful concept outside of capitalism. It’s a confused way of talking and thinking about human relationships.
… it is valued by how hard it is to replace you.
All individuals are irreplaceable.
A nice sentiment, but not very helpful for navigating reality.
Long story short: You are valued by others based on how much value you create for others. Stated this way, it’s a totally obvious conclusion that is possibly easy to forget.
And like another commenter already said, this is true regardless of your preferred economic world view and politics. It’s a simple life lesson.
You can’t replace a close friend with some random person. Individuals have value in them regardless of their ability to do labour, and they are not replaceable as individuals.
It’s really sad how much buy-in there is to the dehumanization of people here.
Another interesting thought. “Dehumanization of people” sounds like the title of a dissertation, it has so much depth you could talk about.
My first thought is, “can you even dehumanize someone” because I’ve never recognized this feeling as having “the features of humanity denied to me” by someone and properly identified it.
Looking back I have for sure been dehumanized at work so many times I can’t get close to counting them. And I don’t think that anyone could go home to their parents house and have their mom be a totally different person without being confused at least.
It is only recently that I would consider my co-workers as not interchangeable. Lower paid high turn over positions you just don’t get attached to people, or at least I don’t. People come and go so fast, but there are some that I only worked with for a few weeks that I remember to this day. Never considered that value before.
I know how much I’m valued as someone with a chronic illness which is to say, virtually not at all. In different times, even somewhat recent times, there are those who would simply prefer that I and others in similar circumstance be killed for our lack of utility.
There are other life lessons one can learn which are by far more valuable here.
This perspective sounds like relationships are a transactional affair of reciprocy. I am very sorry if this has been your experience with people ☹️
It’s not even really that. Paris Hilton? As replaceable as the next individual human. Almost totally without any production or material value, yet loaded with worth. There are dozens of people like her. Or on a smaller scale, many mid-upper level managers are completely interchangeable and produce little to nothing, but are valued far more than someone working in a packing plant.
Worth and value have no correlation in our society. People who have money have it because they have money, not because they work harder or do more important things. Some people do have money and also work hard or do important things, sure, but it isn’t correlated.
Everyone, including yourself, has their own perspective on the value of your actions. You may value your actions to be of greater value than someone else does, but ignoring others’ opinion of that value entirely is perilous.
It’s probably best to flip this on its head. Rather than thinking “others must value me regardless of my productivity”–something you have no control over–instead think “I must show others that I value them not based on any benefit to me”. I.e. be the change you seek.
What do you envision your value being derived from? Just existing doesn’t make someone valuable, it make them a drain on society. You need to contribute something.
I think the misunderstanding here is: What does productivity mean?
I interpreted the OP to mean productivity as “capitalist productivity” - meaning, how much money can you make for your
kingboss. People can still be productive in lots of ways that aren’t considered “capitalist productivity” - for example, I love to garden, take care of greenscapes, and grow food on a small scale. Some people might not be able to do that, but they are wise and great at navigating social situations, and act as the center of their community. Both of those are productive, but often are not “capitalist productive”, if that makes any sense.So I agree with both OP and you - a person’s value isn’t determined by their ability to produce capital.
Exactly. Far too many people misinterpreted this on /r/antiwork as well — they were never saying that everyone should sit around waiting on someone else to provide everyone for them; they were talking about ending the capitalist work paradigm.
Many people here have never read a shred of political theory, and it shows. People should start here. It explains just how much of the work we do under capitalism is unnecessary for the wellbeing of society, and only serves to enrich the capitalist class. It is very possible for us all to do less work, have more leisure, and still have plenty for everyone.
Exactly. That’s what I meant by putting “something” in italics. You don’t necessarily need to produce capitalist output in the current sense, but you need to contribute some value to a community unless you’re fundamentally unable to. If you’re unable to contribute (not unwilling) because of an disability or some other constraint, then I think the community should help you with your challenges. But those situations are very exceptional, since even disabled people can usually contribute quite a lot to society. I clarified in a comment lower down but someone removed it without explanation, even though it broke no rules, insulted no one, and clearly outlined the concepts of differing ideologies.
What would you say to someone with a chronic illness? What would you say if that person was you or your own kid?
If their illness is to a degree that they’re completely disabled then that’s an exception. Under those situations I think their community should provide what is needed for that person so that they’re comfortable for whatever duration remains in their life.
Just to go a bit deeper, would you tell your own disabled child that they are a drain on society? Would you think highly of others who told them that? I’m willing to bet in those circumstances your views would change, so why not reconsider them now?
Laughter is a social good, even if it makes no money. Practicing compassion is a social good. Receiving compassion is a social good. Disabled people are capable of all of these and much more. You are free to believe as you wish, but as someone who has lived on both sides of this issue, I don’t believe your views will sustain themselves under the scrutiny of experience, should that experience ever find you.
@MossBear i accept that your physical pain is real and difficult to cope with, but please don’t make it worse through emotional distress and mental pain
No worries in that regard, I’ve lived with my situation for a long time and my mind is at peace. I just think many people lack perspective on these things and if it were them or someone they cared about, they’d either maintain their attitudes and despair or realize their opinions were flimsy things that would crumble.
@MossBear sorry this is the conversation I have with my son and I was inconsiderate to reply without being aware of the context
Sorry, I misunderstood before. I didn’t realize you were responding to the question I posed. I thought you were speaking to me directly. No worries! :D
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Not everyone has to contribute to make a society functional. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
You’re being exceptionally ableist.
Removed by mod
Ableism.
Comments like this are why I have a hard time taking that concept seriously. It’s not that there’s no truth to the concept.
It’s that many of the people who bring it up want to ignore the large differences in the individual capabilities and that we should celebrate those with high capabilities. We should certainly help those with lesser capabilities, but not to an infinite degree.
