https://t.co/NqSIIoGu8Z This post has an interesting takedown of minimalism as a rich people thing that’s cast as faux-spiritualist asceticism. Except that’s what asceticism always WAS. Rich people casting aside possessions to show how spiritual they were.
Ever notice how in tales of saints and monks (we’re including Buddha here) etc it was always the PRINCES and NOBLES and RICH PEOPLE who threw away their worldly possessions to go live in a cave/large jar and got points for it? Poor people who had nothing to start with never claimed they were extra holy for staying poor when they joined monasteries or fucked off to become a hermit. (re: monasteries – it wasn’t uncommon at one point to give your extra-mouth-to-feed son to the monastery because that was he a) wasn’t a burden on the family b) got a guarantee of a roof over their head and food)
to quote… Pratchett, maybe? If you look at the the prince who goes off to be a no-possessions ascetic, it’s amazing how they never seem to be found dead from starvation because they’ve got no money for food or shelter, like those piles of poor people who freeze to death in winter.
So, yeah. Minimalism-as-lifestyle with added spiritual claims isn’t *faux* asceticism, it’s just *modern* asceticism.
Nowt wrong with minimalism, or not wanting clutter, or getting rid of/selling stuff you don’t need or no longer works. Just try not to act superior about it. See the Sam Vimes boots theory of economics.