Catmatic Leftist
16th July 2011, 03:12
I got into an argument with a capitalist and he just came up with a bunch of historical jargon and I have no idea how to tackle this wall of text. :confused:
The context of this is us discussing "human nature"; I am clueless about anthropology, history, etc. I would appreciate some insight. :)
1. Self-preservation is the strongest of human instincts. We sustain ourselves by taking energy from the environment while avoiding the potential harms. The only way we can sustain ourselves is the intake of food and water. But, that process is interrupted by other carnivorous life forms who also depend on the intake of energy from food and water. A lion will eat your potential prey or even you if it gets a chance and is hungry.
2. At one point in human development we realized that we needed to find more efficient ways of providing food for ourselves. We invented tools and weapons. We were able to kill our rivals in the food chain more efficiently. This was good, but still not quite enough. There's periods over the course of the year when the prey leaves the area due to climate changes and plants we eat do not succeed in that season. Insert: migration. Follow the prey where it goes.
3. Hunting and gathering could only bring us so far. Long periods of migration were exhausting and stressful. Many lost their young in the process or got very sick. We realized that this is not the best thing to do. We had to stop somewhere, reinvigorate ourselves. Some of our stopped at locations which were abundant in food and water. And the more observative noticed that some plants gush out small things into the ground. On that very same location some sunsets later there's more food than it was before. Someone tried to throw those seeds on a different location but still close to where they were found. Insert: Agriculture
4. With the problem of migration solved, since we were able to produce food for ourselves, we settled and first cities started to grow. But then population grew fast, as migrations were a lot lesser in scope and due to food abundance less people died. We started killing each other in times of hunger, as after all many if not everyone feels the gush of self-preservation.
5. That wasn't good, as conflicts brought suffering to both sides, even the victors. Solution: with rise in population, food production has to rise to. Insert: Economic growth as necessity. Killing one another is also bad, what would happen if unfamiliar people come and want to take what we produced? We wouldn't have enough men to fight them off. Insert: law and legislation as means of ensuring growth. Strength is in numbers, at least it was in early cities.
6. Oh look over the hills there's another small community. They get their own food and use a different river. Do we kill them? First we killed, then realized it was bad as it brought more chaos to the community: starvation, infant death etc. Next time we saw a similar community we were like (or better said our elders were) let's not kill them, let's try to see whether they're aggressive first. Insert: contact and trade of goods between differing cultures.
7. And trade was good. But, one city had more food than it needed, while the other had more people but less food. Surely the one's with more food than they need should give us some. After all, we're neighbors. Surely you're kidding, neighbors. We worked hard for those supplies. We're not just gonna give them away, when we can use them if something unpredictable happens. War again. Well this sort of thing is still present today.
8. But, one time a bunch of nasty horsemen came and near conquered both cities. Fck, we need to work together to win. Insert: military alliance.
9. Next time this happens we better be prepared. Insert: merge of cultures into a bigger entity. First small states. In order to get food and resources we can't produce, let's take them from other zones. Insert: imperialism and colonialism. We don't have to be genocidal like our grandfathers, let's just convince them to work for us. Insert: slavery -> serfdom -> feudalism. We have to work for them cause they have stronger weapons and more men, we can't win.
10. Along came men like Buddha and Jesus, who realized the importance of every individual mind to have the opportunity to express itself. Some people are good at making tools (scientists), others are good at solving disagreements (diplomats), others are good at, well that creative shit that inspires people to change their ways (artists). We need them all, as we can not know who will contribute how if we kill them. Plus, Buddha and Jesus dug into the self-preservation instinct much deeper than anyone before them. Staying alive matters for some reason...well you know their philosophies :P.
11. It took around 2 millenia for rulers to realize the truth of such ideas. In the meantime, the powerful kept taking other people's lands and resources. Not good, as the world shrank with the increase in population. Wars were endless and exhausting (100 year war, 30 year war and so on). Good thing Elizabeth realized that being rich doesn't mean being smart. Good thing Luther realized that being smart doesn't mean being productive and a good worker. Good thing the founding fathers realized that you need both to be free. Insert: Egalite, fraternite, liberte.
In the end free market is a combination of competition (which stems from our basic need to survive) and necessity of safe environment (no centralized source of power which would control what you do with what you make). It is designed to help the best in the area of trade and production express themselves. But the design of free market economy is still not over, as the very same reason which sparked the creation of the concept (mercantilism and monopoly) is now back: the best of traders gained significant power and can use that power to control. And of course, when you're on top you want to stay on top, as it is the most comfortable, safest environment. How to solve this? Well the problem is already solved: being rich doesn't mean being smart, creative, a good parent. You just have to instill this into their heads when they're young. They'll still be the best in trade, but would also inquire about what they're not good at.
"It is human nature to want to be successful (since everyone wants to be successful somehow except maybe the severely retarded) and not want authorities to make it harder than it should be. "
The evidence for this statement: shitload of history, observable behavioral patterns, evolution.
It was unnecessary for me to give out detailed historical data in the first post. I'd end up just bombarding you with articles which you'd need a lot of time to check. But since you focused on some specific issues let's expand on that.
I have strong misgivings that war was quite as widespread and as devastating at this point in time as you seem to be suggesting.
Period I'm referring to is the rise of first cities (circa 9000 BC) and rise of Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations around 4000BC. In archeology first cities are defined by monumental architecture (buildings and monuments much larger than humans) and households or like buildings that suggest numbers of over 1000 people. Also specific buildings of communion like temples, town halls, palaces. Carbon dating at Jericho suggests the age of earliest walls to be correct. 3.6 meter stone walls are an example of first monumental architecture in the world. The findings of human remains in Mesopothamia have uncovered large groups of people who died a violent death (hundreds of skeletons). In foraging societies of early paleolithic and Ice age hunter gatherers groups we only encounter isolated examples of violent deaths caused by humans (an arrow, axe, or pointed stone wound). When you find hundreds of bodies at one settlement that had over 1000 people, and 2-3 in settlements with groups no bigger than 20-30 then that clearly points to an increase in devastation and war costs. Despite the equal arithmetic distribution it is much harder to provide for and organize an army of hundreds than 2-3 individuals. Remains of damaged buildings also point to a greater neglect of endeavor as it takes much more effort to build monumental walls than clay huts or just dwell in caves.
The doctrine of constant growth is a more recent phenomenon, and it is anachronistic to apply it to a time (I'm estimating) around 7000 years before the present. The origin of cities is still a matter of debate. Even if some were formed for the reason you suggest, generalizing this to cover all cities is pretty misleading.
I used a modern term, but it is equally applicable to an analysis of an ancient society. When over the course of a couple of hundreds or thousand years, a settlement grows from 1000 to 5000+ people then that is pretty much exponential progression of population. What do you think growth refers to anyway? Rise in production to meet the demand of future generations and an increase in population. Think a society can bloom that much without the increase in food and other goods? Nope. As for legislation and law, uhm almost everything we have about laws in Mesopothamia found on clay tablets and the very Code of Hammurabi as the first centralized law system deals with economic measures. How to cultivate food, how to behave in trade, how to govern a household, what amount of possession is allowed, math and statistics primarily used for more efficient agricultural work (like how to divide into parcels, and how to distribute a specific amount of grain equally).
Genocide does not equal slavery. Feudalism does not preclude slavery. There is not a progression from slavery to serfdom to feudalism. Serfs existed under feudalism, as did slaves. You also characterize these state-like entities to much like modern nation-states with your use of "we". Feudal vassal states ended up in their subordinate position not through a "we must work for them because of so and so" reason. They were beaten (or surrendered do to likelihood of being beaten) in battle, yes. But the nobility made these decisions and agreed to hold their lands in trust for their overlord. They did not do the work. The ones doing the work had no say in this, and really, in the end, who was lord to their lord and so on would have largely meant little to them anyway.
Of course those systems are by no means the same. I'm simply outlining a principle which they all share: enforcement unto others that you do not feel connected to. Genocide both precedes and succeeds regular slavery, and that is pretty well know. You slaughter a big population in order to reduce its numbers in order to avoid future revolts during slavery. Why do you think the Greeks insisted that slaves should remain at 1/3 of Athenian population? Cause a larger number would mean uncertainty in defending against a potential riots. And when riots did happen, you shut them up by killing the ones who rioted. Aye, and what about our good ole British crown and Castilla? Cleaning up entire villages in South America and Africa, and taking vastly smaller numbers with them back to the colonies. As you can see genocide and slavery go quite well hand in hand. As for the relation between serfdom, feudalism and slavery - a slave works but he has to eat to work, he only gets food and water, no other goods. An estate with serfdom is measured by: a number of souls the landowner owns - peachy, how exactly do you own a soul? You give him the land you've taken from his community or ancestors and leave him with just enough currency or goods to eat/survive. In times of famine or when crops don't yield good results, you take it all and leave him to either steal to survive or kill him. Feudalism can be tricky as it is mostly used to refer to European societies in the middle ages. Still, I've read plenty of essays that outline similarities between Feudalism in Europe and similar models throughout history. There's this thingy called nobility that is under the command of a ruler, the nobility in turn commands peasants, peasants do all the work, nobility only has to give resources and gold acquired through taxing. What makes it different from serfdom then? Only power distribution which is more choped up into smaller units. A good quote from Hegel (maybe, could be Marx) is appropriate here: "Monarchy is the rule of one over the well-being of many, Aristocracy is the rule of a larger group but still over the well-being of the majority, (and here I can't remember the exact term, but it means majority rule too) is the majority gaining the power to decide about the law and order in the land."
What part of the teachings of either Buddha or Jesus has anything to do with "the importance of every individual mind to have the opportunity to express itself"? And yes, their philosophies were all about self-preservation, what with one basically teaching that being attached to the material world caused untold suffering and whose end goal was to break the cycle of reincarnation so that one would never need to return to a material existence, and the other teaching that that you need to be a good person, and god will love you, and when you die you won't really die since you'll still be alive, just in a better form in a much better place...
You think metaphysical systems are the only criterion by which Buddhism and Christianity are to be valued and discussed? Many of their teachings talk about the well-being of fellow man and can be discussed in the context of society. Do I seriously need to quote examples where Buddha and Jesus talk about how you should govern yourself among others? Both Buddha and Jesus gave advices about nutrition, primarily about how to not waste the resources you have if you are not well off. Both specifically addressed the unnecessary strive for possession as the only possessions you need are food and water, and these also not in excess. In times of famine and social inequality do you think this is bad advice? Not every historical period allowed for revolutions of the oppressed.
When did this happen?
Buddha circa 500. Jesus circa 0. First major contributions to the freedom of all were in the Reneissance circa 1500 in some countries later in others.
Could you please elaborate, because I don't see the rational connection between intelligence, hard work, and freedom. I don't disagree that they can all coexist, but correlation does not imply causation.
Oh you don't? Robespiere(intelligent) could surely cause the French revolution without the support of peasants (hard working). You are not free if you are intelligent or knowledgable, but can not support your primary needs - slave to necessity and intelligence can not get expressed. You are not free if you can support your primary needs, but do not see the prospects of your hard work as any surplus is taken away - working for people you do not cherish, while getting treated like scum, no means of achieving any other idea or desire you have.
I'm sorry, but how does competition stem from our basic need to survive. There is probably enough food to feed everybody on the earth adequately, but not everybody is fed. It would appear that competition is actually depriving people of their ability to survive, and providing others with far in excess of what they need. And a centralized source is not needed to control what you do with what you make. Your employer is all that is needed to do that. Who really has control of this, except a very small minority. Very few people have the ability to produce anything on their own, and even if they do, they cannot compete with the larger players. If I have a hand loom, I can weave textiles, but someone with a textile factory with ten thousand looms can weave far more, and can sell them for less cost. How can I compete? I would be financially more secure and better off working for the factory owner.
Everything you said here is covered by the following paragraph which you did not get. Here's a documentary that might make things clearer for you:
Documentary — Beetz
Here's a guy who started out as a textile weaver and built a factory. You really can't expect to earn a million per year immediately. It takes decades to build such a successful business. One thing I can agree with is that monopoly still exists and sometimes competition is stiffened in its infancy. This, however, is in many countries well regulated by law and such attempts can bite the tycoons in the ass bad. If corruption is not well regulated in your country then by all means work to change it. But blaming a system for people's inability and corruption is downright unreasonable. What's more free market is the most successful system we have right now. Like I said it's imperfect and needs modification, but the people's discontent with it is much lesser than with other systems. If you opt for socialism, then you have microeconomic socialism everywhere in the world - state funded schools, medical care, fire departments, police are all institutions which are socialist in nature. Those jobs can secure your primary needs and still give you something extra to use. If you don't have the skills to do business then don't do business and use your talents for something else. Some skills are valued more than others, but you really can't insist on abandoning the entire model just cause you yourself happen to have less valuable skills. Your job then is to raise the awareness of the public that your skill should be more valued. And you have free speech do you not? Without taking action nothing will change.
definition of success: creating an environment for yourself which will enable most of your genes (or your soul if believe in it) to get expressed. The more possibility of actualization you gain through your life, the more successful you are. This can happen in many ways, but for most it's gaining money, resources, skills. Majority want to have enough food, not worry about tomorrow and currency enables this. Some enjoy luxury and will want to retain it. Why would you want to retain luxury? Cause luxurious life introduces your genes into a more complex environment. Complex environments are stimulating to our brains. No one living in a present era would want to live in a caveman world. What is necessary however is retaining the current complexity while getting rid of flaws. You can't just tell people not to drive cars. That is a far too useful of a process to get abandoned. What you can do however is make motors which are run by more efficient and less polluting fuels, while not having to replace all existing oil or gas based vehicles.
The context of this is us discussing "human nature"; I am clueless about anthropology, history, etc. I would appreciate some insight. :)
1. Self-preservation is the strongest of human instincts. We sustain ourselves by taking energy from the environment while avoiding the potential harms. The only way we can sustain ourselves is the intake of food and water. But, that process is interrupted by other carnivorous life forms who also depend on the intake of energy from food and water. A lion will eat your potential prey or even you if it gets a chance and is hungry.
2. At one point in human development we realized that we needed to find more efficient ways of providing food for ourselves. We invented tools and weapons. We were able to kill our rivals in the food chain more efficiently. This was good, but still not quite enough. There's periods over the course of the year when the prey leaves the area due to climate changes and plants we eat do not succeed in that season. Insert: migration. Follow the prey where it goes.
3. Hunting and gathering could only bring us so far. Long periods of migration were exhausting and stressful. Many lost their young in the process or got very sick. We realized that this is not the best thing to do. We had to stop somewhere, reinvigorate ourselves. Some of our stopped at locations which were abundant in food and water. And the more observative noticed that some plants gush out small things into the ground. On that very same location some sunsets later there's more food than it was before. Someone tried to throw those seeds on a different location but still close to where they were found. Insert: Agriculture
4. With the problem of migration solved, since we were able to produce food for ourselves, we settled and first cities started to grow. But then population grew fast, as migrations were a lot lesser in scope and due to food abundance less people died. We started killing each other in times of hunger, as after all many if not everyone feels the gush of self-preservation.
5. That wasn't good, as conflicts brought suffering to both sides, even the victors. Solution: with rise in population, food production has to rise to. Insert: Economic growth as necessity. Killing one another is also bad, what would happen if unfamiliar people come and want to take what we produced? We wouldn't have enough men to fight them off. Insert: law and legislation as means of ensuring growth. Strength is in numbers, at least it was in early cities.
6. Oh look over the hills there's another small community. They get their own food and use a different river. Do we kill them? First we killed, then realized it was bad as it brought more chaos to the community: starvation, infant death etc. Next time we saw a similar community we were like (or better said our elders were) let's not kill them, let's try to see whether they're aggressive first. Insert: contact and trade of goods between differing cultures.
7. And trade was good. But, one city had more food than it needed, while the other had more people but less food. Surely the one's with more food than they need should give us some. After all, we're neighbors. Surely you're kidding, neighbors. We worked hard for those supplies. We're not just gonna give them away, when we can use them if something unpredictable happens. War again. Well this sort of thing is still present today.
8. But, one time a bunch of nasty horsemen came and near conquered both cities. Fck, we need to work together to win. Insert: military alliance.
9. Next time this happens we better be prepared. Insert: merge of cultures into a bigger entity. First small states. In order to get food and resources we can't produce, let's take them from other zones. Insert: imperialism and colonialism. We don't have to be genocidal like our grandfathers, let's just convince them to work for us. Insert: slavery -> serfdom -> feudalism. We have to work for them cause they have stronger weapons and more men, we can't win.
10. Along came men like Buddha and Jesus, who realized the importance of every individual mind to have the opportunity to express itself. Some people are good at making tools (scientists), others are good at solving disagreements (diplomats), others are good at, well that creative shit that inspires people to change their ways (artists). We need them all, as we can not know who will contribute how if we kill them. Plus, Buddha and Jesus dug into the self-preservation instinct much deeper than anyone before them. Staying alive matters for some reason...well you know their philosophies :P.
11. It took around 2 millenia for rulers to realize the truth of such ideas. In the meantime, the powerful kept taking other people's lands and resources. Not good, as the world shrank with the increase in population. Wars were endless and exhausting (100 year war, 30 year war and so on). Good thing Elizabeth realized that being rich doesn't mean being smart. Good thing Luther realized that being smart doesn't mean being productive and a good worker. Good thing the founding fathers realized that you need both to be free. Insert: Egalite, fraternite, liberte.
In the end free market is a combination of competition (which stems from our basic need to survive) and necessity of safe environment (no centralized source of power which would control what you do with what you make). It is designed to help the best in the area of trade and production express themselves. But the design of free market economy is still not over, as the very same reason which sparked the creation of the concept (mercantilism and monopoly) is now back: the best of traders gained significant power and can use that power to control. And of course, when you're on top you want to stay on top, as it is the most comfortable, safest environment. How to solve this? Well the problem is already solved: being rich doesn't mean being smart, creative, a good parent. You just have to instill this into their heads when they're young. They'll still be the best in trade, but would also inquire about what they're not good at.
"It is human nature to want to be successful (since everyone wants to be successful somehow except maybe the severely retarded) and not want authorities to make it harder than it should be. "
The evidence for this statement: shitload of history, observable behavioral patterns, evolution.
It was unnecessary for me to give out detailed historical data in the first post. I'd end up just bombarding you with articles which you'd need a lot of time to check. But since you focused on some specific issues let's expand on that.
I have strong misgivings that war was quite as widespread and as devastating at this point in time as you seem to be suggesting.
Period I'm referring to is the rise of first cities (circa 9000 BC) and rise of Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations around 4000BC. In archeology first cities are defined by monumental architecture (buildings and monuments much larger than humans) and households or like buildings that suggest numbers of over 1000 people. Also specific buildings of communion like temples, town halls, palaces. Carbon dating at Jericho suggests the age of earliest walls to be correct. 3.6 meter stone walls are an example of first monumental architecture in the world. The findings of human remains in Mesopothamia have uncovered large groups of people who died a violent death (hundreds of skeletons). In foraging societies of early paleolithic and Ice age hunter gatherers groups we only encounter isolated examples of violent deaths caused by humans (an arrow, axe, or pointed stone wound). When you find hundreds of bodies at one settlement that had over 1000 people, and 2-3 in settlements with groups no bigger than 20-30 then that clearly points to an increase in devastation and war costs. Despite the equal arithmetic distribution it is much harder to provide for and organize an army of hundreds than 2-3 individuals. Remains of damaged buildings also point to a greater neglect of endeavor as it takes much more effort to build monumental walls than clay huts or just dwell in caves.
The doctrine of constant growth is a more recent phenomenon, and it is anachronistic to apply it to a time (I'm estimating) around 7000 years before the present. The origin of cities is still a matter of debate. Even if some were formed for the reason you suggest, generalizing this to cover all cities is pretty misleading.
I used a modern term, but it is equally applicable to an analysis of an ancient society. When over the course of a couple of hundreds or thousand years, a settlement grows from 1000 to 5000+ people then that is pretty much exponential progression of population. What do you think growth refers to anyway? Rise in production to meet the demand of future generations and an increase in population. Think a society can bloom that much without the increase in food and other goods? Nope. As for legislation and law, uhm almost everything we have about laws in Mesopothamia found on clay tablets and the very Code of Hammurabi as the first centralized law system deals with economic measures. How to cultivate food, how to behave in trade, how to govern a household, what amount of possession is allowed, math and statistics primarily used for more efficient agricultural work (like how to divide into parcels, and how to distribute a specific amount of grain equally).
Genocide does not equal slavery. Feudalism does not preclude slavery. There is not a progression from slavery to serfdom to feudalism. Serfs existed under feudalism, as did slaves. You also characterize these state-like entities to much like modern nation-states with your use of "we". Feudal vassal states ended up in their subordinate position not through a "we must work for them because of so and so" reason. They were beaten (or surrendered do to likelihood of being beaten) in battle, yes. But the nobility made these decisions and agreed to hold their lands in trust for their overlord. They did not do the work. The ones doing the work had no say in this, and really, in the end, who was lord to their lord and so on would have largely meant little to them anyway.
Of course those systems are by no means the same. I'm simply outlining a principle which they all share: enforcement unto others that you do not feel connected to. Genocide both precedes and succeeds regular slavery, and that is pretty well know. You slaughter a big population in order to reduce its numbers in order to avoid future revolts during slavery. Why do you think the Greeks insisted that slaves should remain at 1/3 of Athenian population? Cause a larger number would mean uncertainty in defending against a potential riots. And when riots did happen, you shut them up by killing the ones who rioted. Aye, and what about our good ole British crown and Castilla? Cleaning up entire villages in South America and Africa, and taking vastly smaller numbers with them back to the colonies. As you can see genocide and slavery go quite well hand in hand. As for the relation between serfdom, feudalism and slavery - a slave works but he has to eat to work, he only gets food and water, no other goods. An estate with serfdom is measured by: a number of souls the landowner owns - peachy, how exactly do you own a soul? You give him the land you've taken from his community or ancestors and leave him with just enough currency or goods to eat/survive. In times of famine or when crops don't yield good results, you take it all and leave him to either steal to survive or kill him. Feudalism can be tricky as it is mostly used to refer to European societies in the middle ages. Still, I've read plenty of essays that outline similarities between Feudalism in Europe and similar models throughout history. There's this thingy called nobility that is under the command of a ruler, the nobility in turn commands peasants, peasants do all the work, nobility only has to give resources and gold acquired through taxing. What makes it different from serfdom then? Only power distribution which is more choped up into smaller units. A good quote from Hegel (maybe, could be Marx) is appropriate here: "Monarchy is the rule of one over the well-being of many, Aristocracy is the rule of a larger group but still over the well-being of the majority, (and here I can't remember the exact term, but it means majority rule too) is the majority gaining the power to decide about the law and order in the land."
What part of the teachings of either Buddha or Jesus has anything to do with "the importance of every individual mind to have the opportunity to express itself"? And yes, their philosophies were all about self-preservation, what with one basically teaching that being attached to the material world caused untold suffering and whose end goal was to break the cycle of reincarnation so that one would never need to return to a material existence, and the other teaching that that you need to be a good person, and god will love you, and when you die you won't really die since you'll still be alive, just in a better form in a much better place...
You think metaphysical systems are the only criterion by which Buddhism and Christianity are to be valued and discussed? Many of their teachings talk about the well-being of fellow man and can be discussed in the context of society. Do I seriously need to quote examples where Buddha and Jesus talk about how you should govern yourself among others? Both Buddha and Jesus gave advices about nutrition, primarily about how to not waste the resources you have if you are not well off. Both specifically addressed the unnecessary strive for possession as the only possessions you need are food and water, and these also not in excess. In times of famine and social inequality do you think this is bad advice? Not every historical period allowed for revolutions of the oppressed.
When did this happen?
Buddha circa 500. Jesus circa 0. First major contributions to the freedom of all were in the Reneissance circa 1500 in some countries later in others.
Could you please elaborate, because I don't see the rational connection between intelligence, hard work, and freedom. I don't disagree that they can all coexist, but correlation does not imply causation.
Oh you don't? Robespiere(intelligent) could surely cause the French revolution without the support of peasants (hard working). You are not free if you are intelligent or knowledgable, but can not support your primary needs - slave to necessity and intelligence can not get expressed. You are not free if you can support your primary needs, but do not see the prospects of your hard work as any surplus is taken away - working for people you do not cherish, while getting treated like scum, no means of achieving any other idea or desire you have.
I'm sorry, but how does competition stem from our basic need to survive. There is probably enough food to feed everybody on the earth adequately, but not everybody is fed. It would appear that competition is actually depriving people of their ability to survive, and providing others with far in excess of what they need. And a centralized source is not needed to control what you do with what you make. Your employer is all that is needed to do that. Who really has control of this, except a very small minority. Very few people have the ability to produce anything on their own, and even if they do, they cannot compete with the larger players. If I have a hand loom, I can weave textiles, but someone with a textile factory with ten thousand looms can weave far more, and can sell them for less cost. How can I compete? I would be financially more secure and better off working for the factory owner.
Everything you said here is covered by the following paragraph which you did not get. Here's a documentary that might make things clearer for you:
Documentary — Beetz
Here's a guy who started out as a textile weaver and built a factory. You really can't expect to earn a million per year immediately. It takes decades to build such a successful business. One thing I can agree with is that monopoly still exists and sometimes competition is stiffened in its infancy. This, however, is in many countries well regulated by law and such attempts can bite the tycoons in the ass bad. If corruption is not well regulated in your country then by all means work to change it. But blaming a system for people's inability and corruption is downright unreasonable. What's more free market is the most successful system we have right now. Like I said it's imperfect and needs modification, but the people's discontent with it is much lesser than with other systems. If you opt for socialism, then you have microeconomic socialism everywhere in the world - state funded schools, medical care, fire departments, police are all institutions which are socialist in nature. Those jobs can secure your primary needs and still give you something extra to use. If you don't have the skills to do business then don't do business and use your talents for something else. Some skills are valued more than others, but you really can't insist on abandoning the entire model just cause you yourself happen to have less valuable skills. Your job then is to raise the awareness of the public that your skill should be more valued. And you have free speech do you not? Without taking action nothing will change.
definition of success: creating an environment for yourself which will enable most of your genes (or your soul if believe in it) to get expressed. The more possibility of actualization you gain through your life, the more successful you are. This can happen in many ways, but for most it's gaining money, resources, skills. Majority want to have enough food, not worry about tomorrow and currency enables this. Some enjoy luxury and will want to retain it. Why would you want to retain luxury? Cause luxurious life introduces your genes into a more complex environment. Complex environments are stimulating to our brains. No one living in a present era would want to live in a caveman world. What is necessary however is retaining the current complexity while getting rid of flaws. You can't just tell people not to drive cars. That is a far too useful of a process to get abandoned. What you can do however is make motors which are run by more efficient and less polluting fuels, while not having to replace all existing oil or gas based vehicles.