Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Self-Sufficiency Fetish By Kellia Ramares

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 05:25 AM
Original message
The Self-Sufficiency Fetish By Kellia Ramares
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Self-Sufficiency-Fetis-by-Kellia-Ramares-091210-925.html


“No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

-- John Donne, Meditation XVII


Self-sufficiency, a.k.a. self-reliance or rugged individualism, is one of the great fetishes of American culture. To the self-sufficiency fetishists, being able to take care of oneself and pay one's own way is the opposite side of the coin of freedom. Sacrifice self-sufficiency and you have sacrificed freedom, they claim. Not to be able or willing to take care of yourself is to be an infant, whether your caretaker is a blood relative, a spouse, a paid caretaker or “Uncle Sam.” The debate over health insurance reform has brought out the self-sufficiency fetishists in full force. They post comments all over the Internet decrying the idea of “socialized medicine.” They do not believe that health care is a human right but a “personal responsibility.” They are against any government role in health care because people should take care of themselves. They see taxation to help other people to get health care as “confiscation” of their hard-earned money. (Strangely enough, they never see the ever-increasing premiums charged by private health insurance companies for ever-skimpier policies as “confiscation”).


There is one problem with this point of view. Self-sufficiency does not exist. Unless you are grinding your own lenses, drilling your own teeth and making your own medicine, not to mention setting your own bones, stitching your own cuts and taking out your own appendix, you are not self-sufficient in health care. Doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, etc. have been helping you all your life. That's not self-sufficiency...Oh, but you claim you are self-sufficient because you work for a living or own a business so you can pay for all this help. Well, let me not argue here the barbarism of paying to live on the planet on which you were born. I am content to ask you, Mr. and Ms. Self-Reliant, how did you get that job other than through the agency of someone else willing to employ you? Or how does your business thrive unless you have customers or clients willing to buy your goods or services? Is not the company you work for or the business you own dependent on other suppliers of goods and services? That's not self-sufficiency.


What about you, “trust fund baby”? Never had to work a day in your life? Then somebody worked for you so you could have that inheritance. Likewise, those of you ordinary folks lucky enough to marry rich depend on your spouse's (or ex's ) income. That's not self-sufficiency.


If, as a worker, you can purchase health insurance, which is a gateway to health care, not health care itself, it is because your employer provides a plan or you can afford the individual insurance market. Again, your ability to do this depends on others. The employer must provide the plan AND provide you with enough working hours to qualify, AND enough of a salary to afford your share of the premium--a 100% employer-paid plan being a rarity today--or enough of a salary for you to afford individual insurance. And if you are like most workers, there was little or no negotiation of salary when you were hired. You took the wage and benefits (if any) package offered. The amount and frequency of raises, bonuses or additional benefits are at your employer's discretion. Even if you are represented by a union, you may have seen a wage or benefit freeze or cut in recent years. Unionists are dependent on the skill of their negotiators. Represented or not, working “for a living” means an awful lot of dependence for someone who claims self-sufficiency.


Perhaps there was a time in this nation when there was such a thing as self-sufficiency. I remember going to a quilt exhibit in Indiana in the late '70's and seeing, in among the modern quilts, a 19th century quilt made by a woman who grew the plants from which she spun the thread to make the quilt, as well as the plants from which she made the dye for it. Then she made and dyed the quilt herself. THAT is self-sufficiency. (And even then, she might have had a midwife to help her give birth to her children, so health care, such as it was back then, was not always “Do It Yourself.”)


Today, when someone lauds the virtues of self-reliance, I think of the Unabomber, alone in his Montana shack, building his bombs. Yet even he biked into town once in a while for a sack of flour. If you believe the government accounts, the assassin is always a lone gunman. And I have never read a story of an old lady living alone with a lot of cats that made mention of her being on welfare. At least once a year, I read a story of someone who was discovered dead days, weeks, months, and in one case, two years after passing, without family and unmissed by neighbors or tradespeople. That's the gold standard of self-sufficiency. We are not independent; we are interdependent. And though it costs us something to see that our neighbor is taken care of in times of need, we also benefit from our community's members being as strong and healthy as possible so that they all can contribute their time and effort in providing goods and services to the community according to their inclinations. That's where freedom comes in: freedom of choice in what we do with our lives. I fail to see freedom in people working a job, or two or three, just because it was what they could get to pay the bills.

In this, Karl Marx was correct: “From each, according to his abilities. To each, according to his needs” should be the guiding principle of economics.


“That's Socialism!” you cry in horror. Yes, it is. So what? We are all members of a society. That is something the self-sufficiency fetishists have forgotten.






Author's Website: http://broadcasteratlarge.blogspot.com/

Author's Bio: Kellia Ramares is a 50+ radio station board op and freelance journalist in Oakland, California. She is proud to be a liberal, a Pagan, and a straight person for full equality for LGBT's. She produces a weekly public affairs audio podcast called "Broadcaster At-Large". It's available at radio4all.net and iTunes. The Facebook fan page for the podcast is also called "Broadcaster At-Large. She can also be followed on twitter.com/bcasteratlarge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. i assume you built your own windmill & waterpump from scratch, mining the ore, smolting the metal,
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 06:14 AM by Hannah Bell
cutting the lumber, & blew your own canning jars. i assume you don't have any taxes on your land, either, & are prepared to defend it with the bow & arrow you hewed from stone flints.

self-sufficiency is fantasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. big deal. my granpa built his own house, including cutting & milling the timber,
digging the well. he raised his own food & ran cattle & grew the hay. he made his own tools in his own smith shop -- but he wasn't self sufficient, & neither are you.

howling wind. i'm so impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. did you make your own freezer, too?
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 07:03 AM by Hannah Bell
you're not self-sufficient. no one is.

& ten to one you couldn't even make your own bow. you bought it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. did you make your own freezer? did you make your own bow? no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. did you make your gun? or did you buy it at walmart?
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 07:44 AM by Hannah Bell
i'm not being snarky. just saying: the life you lead is almost completely dependent on the socialized production of the global economy. which already exists.

production is already completely socialistic. only the profit is private. the profit = who keeps the value of the total surplus production.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XanaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. You're a woman?
:rofl:

I thought you were a gay survivalist looking for a "good man".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. Not too many people on this board...
eat Big Macs.
Can you survive "on your own" where you are better than I can? Probably. Could you survive in a city better than me? Probably not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. Good bye, I hope you enjoyed your stay here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes and no.
re: The lone wolf/unabomber thing. As a member of a rather large family I guarantee there is such a thing as too much togetherness or too much closeness. You shouldn't forget that sometimes people need space, some more than others. That doesn't make them anti-social or the next mass killer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
8. self-sufficiency is not a fetish
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 07:40 AM by ixion
the author lost me right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. no, but it's a fetish.
fetish:

any object, natural or otherwise, that is believed to contain "power."

Inanimate natural or cultural object believed to have magical power.

now designating any thing irrationally revered.

excessive or irrational devotion to some activity; "made a fetish of cleanliness"


Self-sufficiency, a.k.a. self-reliance or rugged individualism, is one of the great fetishes of American culture. To the self-sufficiency fetishists, being able to take care of oneself and pay one's own way is the opposite side of the coin of freedom. Sacrifice self-sufficiency and you have sacrificed freedom, they claim. Not to be able or willing to take care of yourself is to be an infant, whether your caretaker is a blood relative, a spouse, a paid caretaker or “Uncle Sam.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. correction made...and I disagree
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 07:49 AM by ixion
shouldn't post before coffee. :)

But the author, and you apparently, are specifically misusing the word in order to mock your subjects: those who seek to be self-sufficient.

And, frankly, you're not going to convince me that leaning on others for everything you need is somehow a good idea.

You are, of course, entirely entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you right.

I mean, if you want to use that same logic, you could very easily make the argument that exclusive reliance on others is a fetish, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. i'm not mocking them. i'm stating a fact: they are *not* self-sufficient.
even the amish aren't, & have never been.

the poster most certainly isn't.

where did he get the money to buy his windmill (most of which are made overseas btw, i have a relative in the industry), pump, freezer, gun -- all of which are goods produced in a socialized global economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I understand your point, and I agree with you
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 07:53 AM by ixion
that the poster is not exclusively self-sufficient. He is, however, making an effort to be, and I don't think he should be called a fetishist for doing so.

Again, if everyone on welfare were called welfare fetishists, I doubt you'd like that much.

All I'm saying is that self-sufficiency, to whatever the degree, is better than relying on others to provide for you. That is not a good survival strategy, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. i didn't call him a fetishist. neither did the article. it said self-sufficiency is a fetish of
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 08:01 AM by Hannah Bell
american culture.

you are thinking in terms of laying around & letting other people work for you. that's not the contrast being made in this article. the article is saying essentially the same thing i am: there is no self-sufficiency, we need others to survive, & our living is produced by socialized labor. if we had to produce our living entirely by our own individual efforts we'd be eating bugs.

laying back & letting others work for you is what capitalists do.

btw, there's no sexual connotation whatsoever to this use of "fetish," in case you were thinking there was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. in the context of absolutes
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 08:52 AM by ixion
it is literally impossible for any human being to be self-sufficient from birth to death. Our years of rearing required to be able to survive eliminates that concept from square one.

I guess what I'm taking issue with is the sweeping generalizations.

Not all socialists are hard workers.

Not all capitalists are lazy and/or corrupt.

And not all people who believe in self-sufficiency, or who might be called rugged individualists, have what could pragmatically be called a self-sufficiency fetish. Some do, to be sure. I'm not denying the individual cases, just the blanket statement.

It's always dangerous to work in generalizations, because they're usually inaccurate. That's what I find to be the case here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. i didn't say any of those things. Capitalists, BY DEFINITION, live directly from
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 09:03 AM by Hannah Bell
the labor of others. those don't understand that don't understand what a capitalist is, or how capitalism works.

i've made no generalizations whatsoever.

Capitalist = one who lives off other people's labor.
Woman = human with uterus. is that a generalization?

you're reading your own assumptions & biases into my comments, & trying to argue against your idea of mine. but your idea isn't mine.


we live in a world where production is socialized on a global scale. However, the benefits of this socialized production are monopolized by a small group of capitalists, who use the monetized value of our surplus production to control us & impede human potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. "Capitalist = one who lives off other people's labor."
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 09:10 AM by ixion
That is a generalization, and most definitely your own definition, and not what would be considered a standard accepted definition.


cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism

–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


Incidentally, a small business owner -- like myself -- who does 99.9% of the labor alone, is not "living off other's labor." There is simply no way you can call it that. And when I do bring others in, I pay them well. True enough, if business grows and I have to outsource work, I would be making money off of another person's labor. But if that person is laboring of their own free will, I'm not sure I see a problem with it.

I'm not trying to read-in any bias of either myself or you. I'm simply debating a point of contention. No need to get upset. We're all friends here. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. if you have a business in which you're the sole employee, you're a
a would-be capitalist, not a capitalist.

capitalists make money with money, by hiring other people to work & taking the surplus value they produce as profit.

this is no slam on you, i have no animosity toward small businesspeople. but the fact is, no capitalist hires someone to break even; they hire people because (hopefully) the people will produce more value than their wages, value that goes to the capitalist.

whether people labor "of their own free will" is beside the point. their "free will" is dependent on the choices available.

i'm not angry. i'm not sure why you think so. i'm simply saying your interpretation of what i'm saying is incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. i don't know what my taxes have to do with anything, & i haven't banned you.
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 09:28 AM by Hannah Bell
so i'm not sure what you're talking about.

but if you pay taxes, that means you need money, which you have to get either by working for someone else, having your own business, or investments. which means you're not self-sufficient.

in fact, no one who uses money is self-sufficient. the value of money is produced by the global economy of socialized production.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XanaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Oh. S/he's gone.
That was funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onestepforward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
28. I agree that we are interdependent on each other.
Self-sufficiency, or independence of other people, is an illusion. We are all connected.

I think that the left understands this more than the right, thus we fight for the good of the people vs. fighting for one's self-interest. When our country is thriving, everyone benefits. When our country is declining, it affects us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC