Sometimes, I see on the internet men advising that men must be self-sufficient to be considered a man. I don't see this as a necessarily virtuous or optimal goal for civilization. I can understand a homesteader being self-sufficient, but does he not still buy some supplies to work the farm, or is the expectation that he makes his own tools and everything else he uses? The Soviets called those who were self-sufficient kulaks and had many of them killed. So, doesn't one have to be not just self-sufficient but also participate in broader society, or at least prevent oneself from being dragged to the gulags by having a strong network?
Is a thief self-sufficient because there will always be people to rob from? Is a government official self-sufficient because there will always be people to tax? Is a banker self-sufficient because checking accounts are almost necessary with how payments are structured in the modern era? Is a mobster self-sufficient because he has people to extort?
Cultivating a society that values virtue is the best masculine attitude in my opinion because large groups can be turned against those who are self-sufficient and will kill those who are all alone.
This is the advice thread that I am referring to for what that is worth (https://nitter.net/MasculineSage/status/1560589430729183232#m):
You're articulating a very extreme version of self sufficiency, and taken to that extreme I agree that it's bad advice. Even if you could do things like grow your own food, make your own tools, etc it would be retarded to do so. Anyone who's taken a intro level economics course knows what comparative advantage is. Even if you can do everything on your own you're better off doing what you do best and making mutually beneficial trades to get things you need but others are better at making. That way everyone saves the time and energy it would take to do everything.
A more common version of self sufficiency that I see people advocate is making enough money to enough to support yourself without being financially dependent on anyone else. That is very good advice. If you're financially dependent on someone then they have leverage against you and you're not really your own man. That's what the tweet you link to is getting at. For example, a lot of men make the mistake of becoming dependent on their girlfriend/wife to help pay the mortgage or rent on a more expensive place than they could afford on their own. Once a man does that she has him by the balls, because even if he somehow manages to avoid getting divorce raped he can't afford the place on his own. Plus if the divorce court does get involved she'll inevitably get to live there while he foots the bill. So yeah, self sufficiency is a good way to avoid being in a codependent situation. You're really not free unless you're financially independent.
I know this is an extreme view, but you are never financially independent if you are reliant on a currency that could be hyper-inflated (and no this is not advocating for crypto currency, I have my own issues with that).
Taken from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-sufficient:
"able to supply one's or its own needs without external assistance."
Perhaps, I am being pedantic, but I define "needs" as food, water, and shelter and "external assistance" as any help to obtain these items from any other source other than oneself. Maybe the term independent (as much as one can be) is better than the term self-sufficient. I don't think self-sufficiency exists, or the term simply doesn't sound right to me.
Conflating self sufficiency with total isolated independence. Farmers sell food instead of eating all of it because they need things that food itself can't provide. Even before a medium of exchange existed farmers were bartering their food in communities, and to detach yourself from society probably meant death (or at least a high sacrifice and risk). When we talk about self sufficiency today we are expressing something related but in a context so extreme that it disfigures what we mean. Today we would like the robber baron's entire sword arm removed from our arsehole. And only a little bit, in some instances, even if we were to leave it in at the wrist it would be a modern victory for the centuries, literal Ceasar level legend material. The level of interaction between us and the state today is entirely unprecedented and there has been zero stymie, no relief and no regression of the arm's procedure into the ass.
If we were left alone today only to be pestered once a year for literal wheat by a tax man, society "as we know it" would collapse into base social traditions and expectations. There is a problem with scale in comparing freedom and independence today to those concepts as they existed for our ancestors many centuries ago. It is like talking about inches and feet and then jumping straight into talk about lightyears with no segue or asterisk. Illustrated in a chart, an axis would be broken to "skip to" a feature at its extreme. Two entirely separate charts would organize it better: Antiquity & Today.
I think I am confused by the common definition of self-sufficiency as "able to supply one's or its own needs without external assistance." "Without external assistance" implies to me isolated independence inherently (unless external means outside of one's community rather outside of oneself).
"If we were left alone today only to be pestered once a year for literal wheat by a tax man, society "as we know it" would collapse into base social traditions and expectations."
I would love nothing more than a collapse or reformation to good values. I think it is inevitable. It is simply a matter of debating the number of generations it will take. I want virtue back, and I strive for that.
I’ve always said that man’s biggest desire is independence while women desire subjugation. The truly “independent” male image is someone capable of doing everything and needing no one. This is of course is a desire, not a reality, but it is why men have gone through such pains to explore every corner of the earth, it is why Mars is the next frontier in sight, and it is entirely a unique trait to men. The problem is that at any point more people are needed to create the structures to maintain these desires. One man did not build the Santa Maria, nor will one man make the ability to terraform mars.
Self sufficient means you handle your own shit and don't need to depend on others on an emotional or practical level. It does not mean you reject society and go live on walden pond or become the unabomber.
I think it's a misnomer: what they actually mean is self-reliant. Nobody is expecting you to actually live in isolation from society- especially within society. Like others have said, it's about learning to stand on your own 2 feet without emotionally burdening others; you should be their support and not the other way around.
Women are immediately turned off by a man that appears emotional or vulnerable. Men thus need to cultivate a level of confidence that they can weather various storms and tribulations and get back up even if they fall down. Might be part of how and why we evolved to handle emotional distress differently.
Self-sufficiency is probably the shortest path to self-reliance, but men should be able to coordinate or at least cooperate in a group. Masculinity in a group comes from efficient decision making and proper utilisation of skills. I think this makes meritocracy a masculine feature of hierarchy, whereas feminine hierarchies are more likely to be topped by emotional manipulators.
A mild amount of self-sufficiency is a good thing for a guy, we can't be women who are dependent on others for leading and guiding them to literally everything. If you can't grocery shop, cook "put in the microwave for 5 minutes" meals, or you're young and can't learn anything from youtube videos life is going to be impossible for you.
But every time someone starts this narrative, in the next step they push it to an extreme and make everything pathological. The people who succeed the most are absolutely not independent, they form groups. It's like the basis for our society - for better or worse.
Being relatively independent is more of a "competent but not at the top" position.
I think the term is a misnomer as Indipendepede stated. I am trying to understand a man's definition of self-sufficiency.
There are two parts to this. The first is the idea that we can work hard and gain reward naturally. This doesn't work as much in a lot of sectors because of automation, new technology, and too many people working at the same job. Academia and videogame creation shows this very well.
The second is the idea that we need about the same amount as those who came before us. My grandfather could be self sufficient pretty easily. If he needed extra money he worked at a farm for a few days. Phones, the internet, and entertainment in general cost a lot more than a 6 year old TV bought at a garage sale that gets the 4 major channels.
There's another part that is a side thought, but is worth mentioning.
Churches used to be a source of help. If you needed a mechanic, you grabbed the guy in the congregation. The same happened with doctors, dentists, and plumbers. Now we don't use that as a resource or have reasons not to. A lot of the self sufficient talk came from these types of networks. The person could afford life and helped lift everyone else at the same time. Most churches are told to rely on family, then the government, and then the church as a resource.
When we talk about self sufficient, we also bring up ideas from our pasts. I had a bank manager tell me that I just didn't work hard enough at my job. He meant it very kindly and lovingly. Now he's out of a job, and doesn't know what to do with himself because of all the changes. I tried warning him, but he didn't believe me.
We need to figure out a new form of self sufficiency if we want the idea to continue.