3 ms·

This article reeks of performative privilege. She’s not living without money, she’s simply refusing to handle money herself, allowing others to do it for her.

This article reeks of performative privilege. She’s not living without money, she’s simply refusing to handle money herself, allowing others to do it for her. “I live without money by living rent free in my friend’s house that she paid for with her money and when I discovered dentists won’t accept fermented vegetables, dumpster dived food or my handwritten poetry money I started a crowdfunder asking friends and strangers to give me some of their real money. I have a phone because my friend bought one with money and gave it to me, but I don’t have a SIM card. Instead I use the wifi that my friend pays for with her money…” It’s easy to live “without money” if you know people with money, capital, resources and a sympathy towards alternative ways of living.

fuzzfactor 2y ago
Not my downvote, and I have no way for a corrective upvote right now. I think you do have some good points. >easy to live “without money” if you know people with money In a world of overall abundance or prosperity this might seem like easy living, but isn't that how it's supposed to be ? Now it does seem like the article has a lot of emphasis on the generosity of those around her who are experiencing plentiful resources, and one is not nearly as impressive without the other. But I do get the idea that her generosity in return represents an even greater personal commitment than from those owning the money, to try and overcompensate for the less-impressive nature of not having cash herself to combine with generosity when showing her appreciation for her benefactors. It is a certain kind of privilege when someone without cash can be as generous as someone who has it, or even more so sometimes. Realistically mathematically this would probably work best if you not only know people with money, but they are routinely throwing away so much of it, and your living expenses so insignificant by comparison, that the benefactor is enthusiastic about supplying the currency difference to make it possible in an otherwise cash-conscious world. There would be no worries about whether or not you had any money at all, and regardless could very well result in the most financially stable and secure-feeling environment some people have ever been in. Pretty unrealistic for so many people. Speaking of cash, how about don't even try to forget about it. Go the other way. Just try to use it more. Yup, I mean, go without credit :) Bet you can't do it. Go ahead, use all the cash you want, it may be a better gauge of transaction obstacles in your own world relative to a village life for someone who's not handling cash. Just don't try it if you have negative net worth or you'll be worse off in the world of credit than a person without money is in a world of cash. At least in a world of cash there can be a little to spare, but in a world of credit "everybody" is so far in debt that it makes generosity into an endangered species, almost extinct in many environments where it once thrived.

fuzzfactor 2y ago

Not my downvote, and I have no way for a corrective upvote right now. I think you do have some good points. >easy to live “without money” if you know people with money In a world of overall abundance or prosperity this might seem like easy living, but isn't that how it's supposed to be ? Now it does seem like the article has a lot of emphasis on the generosity of those around her who are experiencing plentiful resources, and one is not nearly as impressive without the other. But I do get the idea that her generosity in return represents an even greater personal commitment than from those owning the money, to try and overcompensate for the less-impressive nature of not having cash herself to combine with generosity when showing her appreciation for her benefactors. It is a certain kind of privilege when someone without cash can be as generous as someone who has it, or even more so sometimes. Realistically mathematically this would probably work best if you not only know people with money, but they are routinely throwing away so much of it, and your living expenses so insignificant by comparison, that the benefactor is enthusiastic about supplying the currency difference to make it possible in an otherwise cash-conscious world. There would be no worries about whether or not you had any money at all, and regardless could very well result in the most financially stable and secure-feeling environment some people have ever been in. Pretty unrealistic for so many people. Speaking of cash, how about don't even try to forget about it. Go the other way. Just try to use it more. Yup, I mean, go without credit :) Bet you can't do it. Go ahead, use all the cash you want, it may be a better gauge of transaction obstacles in your own world relative to a village life for someone who's not handling cash. Just don't try it if you have negative net worth or you'll be worse off in the world of credit than a person without money is in a world of cash. At least in a world of cash there can be a little to spare, but in a world of credit "everybody" is so far in debt that it makes generosity into an endangered species, almost extinct in many environments where it once thrived.