Your value is not determined by your productivity.
Your value is not determined by your productivity.
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
biggest lie there is. Case in point: People don't need incentive to preserve their environment. Incentives actually corrupt our motives.
Preserving your environment would be contributing something, so I'm not really sure how your statement is meant to be interpreted.