View Full Version : radical minimalists?
Hi there simple friends?
So I've been reading Daniel Suelo's biography (the man who quit money')... I'm always kinda fascinated by those people who 'go all the way' and really reduce their consumption to almost nothing... I'm wondering are there any people here on the SLF forums who consider themselves radical minimalists? Or who limit themselves to a certain number of possessions, for example?
If so, how long have you been living that way?
What was the toughest thing to give up?
And has it really made you happier?
I'd love to hear about your experience... thanks! ;)
I would love to hear what others have to say, lucas. I LOVE the book The Man Who Quit Money, and from time to time I visit Suelo's blog, zero currency.blogspot.com.
The topic is fascinating to me as well.
Other people you may wish to read about are:
Mark Boyle (UK): If you go online you can read his Moneyless Manifesto for free. He's very active in the moneyless community
HeidiMarie Schwermer (Germany): She got rid of all of her possessions and has lived moneyless for several years.
Peace Pilgrim (US): Had nothing but a toothbrush and a few note cards and stamps in her "peace pilgrim" tunic and walked across the US back and forth for peace
Another not-quite-moneyless, but minimalist is Jim Merkel (Radical Simplicity)--I've loved his book for a long time. He lived under $5,000 to avoid paying taxes as a political statement.
There is another really compelling book called 12 x 12 by William Powers about a women (her name is Jackie Benton in the book, but that's not her real name--she is a real person however) who lived in a 12 x 12 house and also intentionally earns very little in order to avoid paying taxes as a political statement.
There is another story about a guy who lives in a "hobbit house." His book is also called Radical Simplicity by Dan Price.
As you suspect, there are a few people here on this forum who are very minimalist, and so I hope they speak up and tell you their experiences. I aspire to be like them someday, but I'm far from it, unfortunately.
Fawn was on the very low possessions initiative for the past few years but I haven't seen too many posts from her lately.
I would have considered myself a radical minimalist when I was younger. I still relate and own fewer possessions than most now but I am married with a kid, a few pets and stuff but not a lot of stuff.
I left home for good at 21. I left with what could fit into a duffle bag and back pack. When I arrived at my destination, I lived in a very time loft apartment with a fold out couch, trunk coffee table, table and 2 chairs, 1 candle, my blankets and pillows and my clothes/shoes/accessories. A few dishes, 2 pieces of art, towels, personal hygiene items were all I had. I lived like this for almost 10 years, only adding a bed when I had a real apartment but I shared everything else with roommates. I also lived with only cash, even paying my rent in cash. It was nice and simple.
Now, I would say I am still a minimalist. I keep purging and am trying to get back to less. Work in progress.
I consider myself a minimalist - although I don't consider myself a "radical" minimalist at this time in my life as I own a home with regular, but very very minimal, amount of household "stuff". However, in the past I would have been considered radical by most people I guess. Got rid of everything I owned (which wasn't much at all as I've always been a minimalist - sort of the one plate, one bowl, one knife and fork thing) and travelled a bit. Plan to do that again (travel full time)as soon as I sell my house. Already got rid of most things besides basic furniture (am down to just one small briefcase size box of important papers and photos that I will keep) so that I can live out of a backpack (or car if I take my dog) and just rent a furnished place on occasion. While I will never be "No Money Girl" (even if I am financially frugal and live on about $1,000/month or less usually), I have found great happiness and contentment living fairly spartanly.
Thanks guys for all this information.... really helpful! Catherine especially - thanks for directing me to these sources... i really aspire to simplifying more and more... I've made a fair bit of progress in this regard, but I'd say the road so far has really just taken me from being a rampant consumer to be being a modest/normal consumer... I want to push forward to being a low-consumer, as I feel more and more that this is indeed the road to freedom...
Razz, what is the 'very low possessions initiative' you mention? Is that a thing?
Thanks folks... I really appreciate your input!:thankyou:
While I consider myself a minimalist, but probably not a radical minimalist, I do live with very few possesions. After my divorce I downsized into a tiny cottage, bringing only the bare minimum of what I needed and a few items dear to my heart and comfort. And my two cats, of course...
Check out this older thread about sorting through clothes for ideas on low possessions-
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?7785-Decluttering-Clothes/page6&highlight=fawn
Gardenarian
4-29-14, 2:59pm
I don't buy much but we still seem to have a lot of crap.
A lot of it is gifts and inheritance stuff. Hard to get rid of.
If I lived alone I could be a radical minimalist.
I wrestle with some fundamental philosophical questions on this, which are not quite resolved. Daniel Suelo, if I remember the book correctly, had basic difference in the construct of our modern western society and how we define wealth, and lived as he did as much as being true to himself as anything. And that's good. It's interesting to read about, but no matter how you spin it he is probably regarded as an eccentric in the least and more towards being a bit of a kook.
The other side is having some differences in social construct and wanting to be some sort of catalyst for change. In that respect would it have more impact to live more or less normally, but frugal, not bound to the Puritan work ethic, happy, giving back to society, and example to others as something achievable without becoming something of a social anomaly?
Rogar, I read your comment about Suelo being an outlier and a kook and then I read your auto signature..a bit of irony there. I think Suelo could say the same. I think he at least asks us to question those very constructs you spoke of. Right now, there are very few people willing to leave behind the status quo as far as money is concerned, and he is one of them.
I remember reading Into the Wild, and I think the subject of that book (I can't recall his name--Chris Candless?) was also led by pure idealism, but pursued it rather foolishly, and died as a result. But Suelo is like a modern day Diogenes, living in his cave-barrel and philosophizing over the true meaning of money. I really enjoy what he has to say, even though I'm not about to find myself a cave.
I think it's counter productive to discount people who are different because of the argument "well what if everyone did that?" That's the beauty of human nature: we are all different and have different things to teach each other.
Rogar, I read your comment about Suelo being an outlier and a kook and then I read your auto signature..a bit of irony there. I think Suelo could say the same. I think he at least asks us to question those very constructs you spoke of. Right now, there are very few people willing to leave behind the status quo as far as money is concerned, and he is one of them.
I remember reading Into the Wild, and I think the subject of that book (I can't recall his name--Chris Candless?) was also led by pure idealism, but pursued it rather foolishly, and died as a result. But Suelo is like a modern day Diogenes, living in his cave-barrel and philosophizing over the true meaning of money. I really enjoy what he has to say, even though I'm not about to find myself a cave.
I think it's counter productive to discount people who are different because of the argument "well what if everyone did that?" That's the beauty of human nature: we are all different and have different things to teach each other.
Maybe I didn't communicate well. I think Suelo is a fine fellow. An outlier, by of his being different in his ways, but not a kook. I was thinking more from the perspective of the common every day American, who I see as being caught up in consumerism. And the point I was attempting to make is that the general public is less likely to try to follow the example of an eccentric, than they are to follow someone more moderate. Of course we all should be true to our beliefs, and I respect Suelo for that, but his chosen lifestyle is less likely to impact much of a degree in social change. And, I was not making that as a hard statement, but more as a question or discussion item. Which is better, being insular and separate while satisfying your personal beliefs, or being more a part of the mainstream and trying influence others in a way to make a better future?
Let's say that a person with similar motivations as Suelo, instead of living in a cave in Moab, decided to start an ecocycle operation, or became a writer, or a teacher, or musician. Would not that have a higher purpose?
Which is better, being insular and separate while satisfying your personal beliefs, or being more a part of the mainstream and trying influence others in a way to make a better future?
Let's say that a person with similar motivations as Suelo, instead of living in a cave in Moab, decided to start an ecocycle operation, or became a writer, or a teacher, or musician. Would not that have a higher purpose?
I'm sorry if I misunderstood!
But, in answer to your question, I'm sorry, but people are called to be themselves and they can be no other--even if it's kooky or crazy.
--Gandhi had a successful law practice. Couldn't he have kept his suits and contacts in the legal profession instead of spinning his own cotton for his loin cloth while challenging the British Empire?
--Moses could have been the Pharoah's right-hand man and exerted his influence to help his people but instead he led them on an insane trek across the desert.
--MLK could have worked inside the system--he had PhD in sociology and theology, instead of being an "upstart" and risking the safety of himself and family.
--Peace Pilgrim could have been a teacher in Egg Harbor, NJ instead of walking thousands of miles and prompting people to think about inner peace, and peace among people.
There is a time for working inside the system and a time for bucking it. You are so right when you say that it's great to be true to yourself--and there is no substitute for that. If Suelo had decided to be an ecocycle entrepreneur, would he have felt fulfilled in that? Would that have mattered? He's still just be another eco-entrepreneur. His path is for us to judge. I'm just thankful for the crazies who have shown us a different path.
Catherine, I can see a little Suelo in all of your examples, but none of them become isolated from society because of their beliefs, but to the contrary were organizers of people and immersed themselves social organizations.
I went to hear the Dalai Lama several years ago and at the end of his talk he took a few questions. When asked what he would like to do when he got "old"and in his final days. He said he would like to live in a cave and meditate. Maybe that was living up to his true self, but he made the sacrifice to go out to the whole world to help people live in a better world.
Catherine, I can see a little Suelo in all of your examples, but none of them become isolated from society because of their beliefs, but to the contrary were organizers of people and immersed themselves social organizations.
OK.. he's not Moses or Gandhi, but he's making his statement in his own way, and as you said, I totally respect that, and I'm not about to suggest my own take on how he should live. Also look up the other moneyless people I mentioned. My take-away from all of them is we have this iron-clad paradigm that we have to have money to exist, when actually money is just an illusion. It was organized to serve one purpose and now it is THE purpose.
Suelo, and Boyle, and Schwermer challenge our beliefs that our lives depend upon money.
Boyle:
Money – that soulless, empty, arbitrary concept, subject to the fickle whims of markets and inflation, in itself good for neither feeding us, sheltering us nor loving us – has become more meaningful, more valued and more sacred in our lives than trees – providers of oxygen, water, food, shade, shelter and soil structure. We are in Alice’s wonderland, where nothing is what it seems, and nothing is as it should be. We are completely delusional about what we need in order to live nourished, meaningful lives, and our delusion is destroying not only our ability to do that, but the ability of every other species on the planet to do so too. As the Cree Indian proverb goes, it seems that “only when the last tree has died, the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught, will we realise we cannot eat money”.
ETA: We are talking about him right now, and he's had a book written about him, and he has inspired others, so I would challenge what you said about his not doing anything to help society.
Hi there friends,
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the role of renunciation and how ti relates to social activism or social change... I think we need people like Suelo, and their contribution shouldnt be underestimated... it may be that only minority of people believe whole financial-consumption system is BS, but that minority is likely to be significant nonetheless... it's interesting that so few of those people actually decide to 'go all the way' and reject the system in how they live their lives... I agree with a lot of Suelo's beliefs, but I haven't rebelled in the way he has... i think this experience - knowing the money system and the pursuit of possessions that goes with it is essentially delusion, but going along with it anyway - is probably quite common... choosing to strike out in the way Suelo has takes courage, and we need people like that to remind us of what's real and what's possible...
I've been a meditator, and part of a buddhist community, for some years, and it's always interesting to see how people reconcile their belief in renunciation and some kind of 'ultimate reality' with the pursuit of social justice... some buddhists feel that activism is just buying into the delusion of separateness and that, insodoing, you reify your ignorance... I'm more inclined to believe that helping others goes hand-in-hand with renunciation... basically, some say 'why cling to beliefs and fight those of perpetrate injustice if you know we are all one anyway'... while others say 'if I am connected to everyone else, what else would I do but try to make their lives better'.... I guess it's a debate that could go on forever... but either way, I think it's clear we need more people with the courage to go against the stream and 'give it all up'...
I tend toward minimalism, though I'm certainly not in Suelo's league. But I think it's possible, as some self-proclaimed radical minimalists do, to make a fetish out of seeing how few items you can own. To me, the goal of simple living isn't minimalism but optimalism--having the number of items you need, and no more. Since I'm single and childless, that number is pretty low.
I usually think of the "cave-dwelling people" type as more stoics then minimalists. They seem to embrace a life of total deprivation for some reason (religious, spiritual, political or social idealism, etc...) rather than just because they are happy and OK living with fewer things and it makes their lives easier and better. Or because they are anti-consumption environmentalists who want to make as small of an impact on the planet as possible. Or just because they don't like "stuff". I personally am a minimalist who, on occasion, will live a temporary life of deprivation and stoicism in order to push myself in a new and interesting direction just to see what it feels like and how my body and mind respond. But in the end I am really happiest living smaller and lighter and freer without clutter and excess stuff then I am living an isolated cloistered life of a stoic cave dweller.
Yes, some people are called to extreme asceticism, and others are not. We all have our thing. I am SUCH a wannabe practitioner of voluntary poverty, but I have some encumbrances that are hard to shake, like attachments to some of my stuff, and attachments to my DH who is not into voluntary poverty AT ALL (he is still dreaming of a Boston Whaler).
Hi there friends,
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the role of renunciation and how ti relates to social activism or social change... I think we need people like Suelo, and their contribution shouldnt be underestimated... it may be that only minority of people believe whole financial-consumption system is BS, but that minority is likely to be significant nonetheless... it's interesting that so few of those people actually decide to 'go all the way' and reject the system in how they live their lives... I agree with a lot of Suelo's beliefs, but I haven't rebelled in the way he has... i think this experience - knowing the money system and the pursuit of possessions that goes with it is essentially delusion, but going along with it anyway - is probably quite common... choosing to strike out in the way Suelo has takes courage, and we need people like that to remind us of what's real and what's possible...
I've been a meditator, and part of a buddhist community, for some years, and it's always interesting to see how people reconcile their belief in renunciation and some kind of 'ultimate reality' with the pursuit of social justice... some buddhists feel that activism is just buying into the delusion of separateness and that, insodoing, you reify your ignorance... I'm more inclined to believe that helping others goes hand-in-hand with renunciation... basically, some say 'why cling to beliefs and fight those of perpetrate injustice if you know we are all one anyway'... while others say 'if I am connected to everyone else, what else would I do but try to make their lives better'.... I guess it's a debate that could go on forever... but either way, I think it's clear we need more people with the courage to go against the stream and 'give it all up'...
Lucas, as I get it, compassion is a major element of Buddism, but I don't hear much about service. Which seems basic to Christianity, at least as it's practiced. I'm really not taking sides on either issue, but was wondering if I have this right?
There is the popular Christian verse saying that we are in the world, but of it. Which some have interpreted as being spiritual rather than materialistic. I think it has some basis in why certain Christian sects have separated themselves from society, like maybe the Amish.
Good questions, Rogar.
There is the type of Buddhism called "engaged Buddhism" such as what is practiced by Thich Nhat Hanh, who is certainly an activist in the true sense of the word. lukas, perhaps you could shed more light on this aspect of Buddhism. I am a devotee of Thich Nhat Hanh, but I would call myself a Christian with Buddhist leanings, so I'd love to hear what you have to say to Rogar about this.
I have been reading a lot about mysticism--the paradox of entering an interior world is that in many cases, it results in a powerful ability to take the unity with God that one finds and turning it outward to incredible works of service in the world.
What many people of all different spiritual orientations experience is that by turning inward and finding "God," "the Divine Source," "Enlightenment," etc. they come to such a strong sense of our Oneness with everyone is that they no longer perceive any separation with other beings--and this drives them with a passion to serve others in the world.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.