Your value is not determined by your productivity. : simpleliving

[–] Kindymycin@lemmy.one 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 😊

[–] wildeaboutoskar 15 points 1 year ago

"Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.” Terry Pratchett

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Agreed, and it's a problem we need to nip in the bud before it becomes entrenched.

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] Kindymycin@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thank you for your well put reply, and I agree, your position is not without roots. Though, I'd like to humbly suggest that your points may actually support the notion that runaway modern capitalism does not effectively determine a person's value. I would argue that the fact that a paragon can struggle economically and a grifter can swindle their way to high fortune shows that capitalism does not equitably reward good and punish evil. Therefore, a person should not allow their financial status (the value capitalism has assigned them) to be the measure of their personal value.

On the point of the system's undervaluing of people and their work (which is absolutely true) making it harder to lead a simple life, I'm not sure the two are connected. Being compensated well makes things much much easier, but that doesn't make things simpler. A person can live a very modest life that is simple, tranquil, and full of joy. Someone can also be extremely wealthy and ambitious with a fast paced life full of complexity, stress, and anguish.

I'm very sorry that youre feelings stuck. It's frustrating and it absolutely can feel patronizingly when you're struggling for better and someone tries to placate you with platitudes. But, the gift of simple living is that by appreciating the little things, removing stressful complexly, and slowing down, anyone in any situation can have more peace and happiness in their situation, even if it doesn't get better.

Warmest wishes my friend and be well.

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’d like to humbly suggest that your points may actually support the notion that runaway modern capitalism does not effectively determine a person’s value

Therefore, a person should not allow their financial status (the value capitalism has assigned them) to be the measure of their personal value

My point is that how your society treats someone is a reflection of how it values them, that is more important than self-esteem. You can say how people should be treated, but it doesn't mean much to say that if they aren't.

Pushing the cynical bit aside, for clarity I would say it'd be better to say potential value here, as yeah pretty much everybody would have more value if they weren't suffering most of their life.

Yet (maybe not so) oddly that doesn't matter to the same society with an economy and political system based on speculation.

undervaluing work (which is absolutely true) making it harder to lead a simple life
I’m not sure the two are connected

The systems in USA was an important bit of my comment. The healthcare system and car-centric design (zoning+spread out) complicates life (and work) on top of being a monetary drain. Add in low pay and expensive housing/food and it's even worse. And most people don't have great diet/health etc.

You can ignore those, but that gives you more of a simple existence than a simple life, particularly as you are giving things up/living within limits. Staying home due to poor travel and high cost limits socialization and enjoyment options.

[–] Kindymycin@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

I hear you, and I've really enjoyed our discourse. I think we're about 95% on the same page here, but you know how difficult trying to clearly communicate through text can be. I'm not sure I agree that how a society treats someone is more important than their internal sense of self worth, and that may be our sticking point that we can't reconcile, but I'm not saying your wrong. That point is completely defensible, but not how I see things.

For what it's worth, conversing with you has added value to my life and expanded my perspective. Though we've never met, and I'll most certainly never shake your hand or look you in the eye, I value you.

I wish you and anyone reading this to be well and have peace 😊

[–] argv_minus_one 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The people who decide whether I eat or starve disagree wholeheartedly with you.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism doesn't set your value as a human being.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure the phrase "value as a human being" even has meaning.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm sorry if you don't feel that human lives have inherent value.

[–] Didros 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] natori 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like you need some friends, friend. Those aren't them.

[–] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Techpriest@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

speak for yourself. This normalization of sociopathic behavior is nauseating.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] Adramis 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 ~~king~~ boss. 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.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Ableism.

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

biggest lie there is. Case in point: People don't need incentive to preserve their environment. Incentives actually corrupt our motives.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Preserving your environment would be contributing something, so I'm not really sure how your statement is meant to be interpreted.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] freetirement@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] shlomek@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

... it is valued by how hard it is to replace you.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All individuals are irreplaceable.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] inasaba@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Didros 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Kindymycin@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

This perspective sounds like relationships are a transactional affair of reciprocy. I am very sorry if this has been your experience with people ☹️

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Speak for yourself. Normalization of the lie that everyone is selfish and self centered is what's ruining everything for everybody. A few sociopaths up the economic ladder have every incentive to make people believe this. Otherwise, the rat race is over.

[–] natori 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] booklovero@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

So the value of a person is determined by how much the person creates for himself?