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.
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.
That’s a bit of an uncharitable assessment considering they’re just stating how things operate now.
We don’t have post-scarcity yet (even if we could somewhat) and neither do we have survival lifestyle where strength-in-numbers means practically anyone will boost survival of the group as has happened in the past (see healed fractures in ancient bones). Plus land ownership/availability and resources are much different, money and process tangle everything now.
Particularly in USA, it also doesn’t help that preventable/treatable health issues are such a big problem (also public transportation, zoning, wages/benefits, law, lack of socialization, and 100 other issues combining together), leaving people behind to suffer.
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.
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?
So what is your solution for the paralyzed, the crippled, and the terminally ill? Are they a drain on the system, better off put down like animals?
… it is valued by how hard it is to replace you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
biggest lie there is. Case in point: People don’t need incentive to preserve their environment. Incentives actually corrupt our motives.
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.
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.
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.