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 # 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 😊
"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).
Agreed, and it’s a problem we need to nip in the bud before it becomes entrenched.
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.
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.
A lot of sociopaths propagate the lie that everyone in the world is as selfish and corrupt as they are. These people are the ones who are controlling capital. It’s their incapability to be normal like everyone else that’s responsible for their sociopathy and also their projection of values.
Don’t be fooled, you’re sane if you reject the capitalistic ideals. It’s insane to make somebody else disproportionately wealthy with your hardwork and ideas.
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.
… 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.
