Chris an economy which has monopolies and or oligopolies very effectively puts limits on the fruits of hard labor.

Well that's the world written off then. Now what?

Gosh, I didn't know that there was an unlimited supply and an unlimited demand for anything .......

Gary I think one could make a strong case for unlimited demand.

Only if the population can grow unbounded.

---

Gary I think individuals can have unlimited demand. I remember a few years back hearing an interview with Paul Allen in which he stated there really wasn't much difference between 2 billion and 10 billion yet he continued to amass more. Me thinks that's an example of unlimited demand.

---

Gary I think individuals can have unlimited demand. I remember a few years back hearing an interview with Paul Allen in which he stated there really wasn't much difference between 2 billion and 10 billion yet he continued to amass more. Me thinks that's an example of unlimited demand.

While everyone wants a copy of Paul Allen's O/S I doubt that everyone wants millions of copies. Infinity is a big number.

---

The idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail based on hard work or ability is a myth that excludes effects such as racism, sexism, extreme poverty and psychopathic behaviours of those with power (that could and does at the moment include financial power).

Even in a world with perfect race and gender equality, consisting only of decent human beings, and where everyone is given the exact same opportunities, a capitalist system will not make every hard working person a winner. I mean, we can't all be super nerds coming up with the next Facebook, or super doctors curing people, or super business men running large multinational companies. The capitalist system needs people that aren't winners much more than it needs the actual winners. Because the not winners, they become the worker bees, the people collecting the trash or the ones that set up manufacturing lines, the ones that translate the grand ideas of those winners into actual products.

Actually, the very idea that in a capitalist system, hard work results in success is a lie. Capitalism does not grants success based on hard work, it grants success to smart work. Politicians just tell everyone that capitalism rewards hard work because they would have a riot on their hands if they actually told the truth, namely that only a tiny percentage of the population even has a shot at success while everyone else is, regardless of everything, doomed to never succeed in the really big sense. Of course, as an added benefit, they can use this narrative as a rhetorical whip to get people to work and have them work as hard as possible. Its a set up for cut backs on social security and its good for worker productivity.

Sorry, but I would say there's at least a 3rd and 4th option.

... it grants success to smart work.

It also grants success to luck in the sense of inheritance (among other things) and luck mixed with hard work and smart work.

Example: George Lucas had the luck to live long enough for CGI to be developed so he could go back and add special effects to his original trilogy of Star Wars movies. In that luck, hr was able to get lots of people to watch them again at the theaters and sell new versions on VHS and DVD. It also served as hype to get people interested for the next installment of trilogies.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Sorry, but I would say there's at least a 3rd and 4th option.

... it grants success to smart work.

It also grants success to luck in the sense of inheritance (among other things) and luck mixed with hard work and smart work.

Example: George Lucas had the luck to live long enough for CGI to be developed so he could go back and add special effects to his original trilogy of Star Wars movies. In that luck, hr was able to get lots of people to watch them again at the theaters and sell new versions on VHS and DVD. It also served as hype to get people interested for the next installment of trilogies.

No, luck is not a factor. What you call luck is either the result of an unequal playing field, giving some actors natural advantages from the start, or its not really luck, but smart work and being simply better than the competition in some crucial way.

In the first case, capitalism doesn't inherently reward it. Yes, your life is probably easier and you gain a lot of advantages, but those are not the result of capitalism rewarding you for being lucky. In most other systems such a person would have a unfair advantages. Besides, being born with money or the right genes is not a guarantee for success. You can still be outsmarted or you can still screw up and make mistakes and end up losing the advantage.

In the second case, which would be your Star Wars example, George Lucas wasn't lucky. I mean, living to the ripe old age of 55 is not lucky if you are a rich American. He saw and made use of another opportunity and thats it. Smart business move, no luck involved.

The idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail based on hard work or ability is a myth that excludes effects such as racism, sexism, extreme poverty and psychopathic behaviours of those with power (that could and does at the moment include financial power).

Even in a world with perfect race and gender equality, consisting only of decent human beings, and where everyone is given the exact same opportunities, a capitalist system will not make every hard working person a winner. I mean, we can't all be super nerds coming up with the next Facebook, or super doctors curing people, or super business men running large multinational companies. The capitalist system needs people that aren't winners much more than it needs the actual winners. Because the not winners, they become the worker bees, the people collecting the trash or the ones that set up manufacturing lines, the ones that translate the grand ideas of those winners into actual products.

Actually, the very idea that in a capitalist system, hard work results in success is a lie. Capitalism does not grants success based on hard work, it grants success to smart work. Politicians just tell everyone that capitalism rewards hard work because they would have a riot on their hands if they actually told the truth, namely that only a tiny percentage of the population even has a shot at success while everyone else is, regardless of everything, doomed to never succeed in the really big sense. Of course, as an added benefit, they can use this narrative as a rhetorical whip to get people to work and have them work as hard as possible. Its a set up for cut backs on social security and its good for worker productivity.

Good post

---

Reality Internet Personality

The idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail based on hard work or ability is a myth that excludes effects such as racism, sexism, extreme poverty and psychopathic behaviours of those with power (that could and does at the moment include financial power).

Even in a world with perfect race and gender equality, consisting only of decent human beings, and where everyone is given the exact same opportunities, a capitalist system will not make every hard working person a winner. I mean, we can't all be super nerds coming up with the next Facebook, or super doctors curing people, or super business men running large multinational companies. The capitalist system needs people that aren't winners much more than it needs the actual winners. Because the not winners, they become the worker bees, the people collecting the trash or the ones that set up manufacturing lines, the ones that translate the grand ideas of those winners into actual products.

Actually, the very idea that in a capitalist system, hard work results in success is a lie. Capitalism does not grants success based on hard work, it grants success to smart work. Politicians just tell everyone that capitalism rewards hard work because they would have a riot on their hands if they actually told the truth, namely that only a tiny percentage of the population even has a shot at success while everyone else is, regardless of everything, doomed to never succeed in the really big sense. Of course, as an added benefit, they can use this narrative as a rhetorical whip to get people to work and have them work as hard as possible. Its a set up for cut backs on social security and its good for worker productivity.

Good post

Indeed.

Sorry, but I would say there's at least a 3rd and 4th option.

... it grants success to smart work.

It also grants success to luck in the sense of inheritance (among other things) and luck mixed with hard work and smart work.

Example: George Lucas had the luck to live long enough for CGI to be developed so he could go back and add special effects to his original trilogy of Star Wars movies. In that luck, hr was able to get lots of people to watch them again at the theaters and sell new versions on VHS and DVD. It also served as hype to get people interested for the next installment of trilogies.

No, luck is not a factor. What you call luck is either the result of an unequal playing field, giving some actors natural advantages from the start, or its not really luck, but smart work and being simply better than the competition in some crucial way.

In the first case, capitalism doesn't inherently reward it. Yes, your life is probably easier and you gain a lot of advantages, but those are not the result of capitalism rewarding you for being lucky. In most other systems such a person would have a unfair advantages. Besides, being born with money or the right genes is not a guarantee for success. You can still be outsmarted or you can still screw up and make mistakes and end up losing the advantage.

In the second case, which would be your Star Wars example, George Lucas wasn't lucky. I mean, living to the ripe old age of 55 is not lucky if you are a rich American. He saw and made use of another opportunity and thats it. Smart business move, no luck involved.

Michel, I am often surprised when someone is saying similar things to you, you overlook this. Furthermore, while there is some truth to some of Dena's recent posts, I was attempting to provide a more nuanced version of reality to both what she said and what you have said.

Let's not "nitpick". Here's an example you should find easier to follow.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov died in 1992. His Foundation books have never been made into movies. "I, RObot" was, but about a decade after his death.

I am willing to bet he also was a rich man, but he died of "Heart and kidney failure related to AIDS". Even so, he was 72 at his death.

The worlds/galaxy he described from the Robot series to the Foundation series took a lot of description. I think it could be fair to say that up to and including 1992, a movie trying to show what he described would have been quite inadequate. If he had said, there's no way I'd let my book be made into a movie because movie technology could not adequately convey my words, I would not be surprised.

He was born and died too early for CGI. That his existence occupied the time span it did, from 1920-1992, was pure coincidence (unless you subscribe to belief in a divine creator, and specifically a creator that puts each person on Earth precisely when he/she/it plans to). Pure coincidence = luck. Plain and simple.

BTW, I imagine any of his heirs received money from the "I, Robot" movie. But, coincidentally, Isaac did not. IE, by luck, Isaac did not.

Stanley Kubrick, who helped Arthur C. Clarke bring 2001 to film, lived 81 years, dying in 1999 of natural causes. This was right about the time CGI was appearing in movies. By coincedence ... by luck ... he did not live long enough to even consider putting out with Clarke an edited or updated version of 2001.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Michel, I am often surprised when someone is saying similar things to you, you overlook this. Furthermore, while there is some truth to some of Dena's recent posts, I was attempting to provide a more nuanced version of reality to both what she said and what you have said.

Let's not "nitpick". Here's an example you should find easier to follow.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov died in 1992. His Foundation books have never been made into movies. "I, RObot" was, but about a decade after his death.

I am willing to bet he also was a rich man, but he died of "Heart and kidney failure related to AIDS". Even so, he was 72 at his death.

The worlds/galaxy he described from the Robot series to the Foundation series took a lot of description. I think it could be fair to say that up to and including 1992, a movie trying to show what he described would have been quite inadequate. If he had said, there's no way I'd let my book be made into a movie because movie technology could not adequately convey my words, I would not be surprised.

He was born and died too early for CGI. That his existence occupied the time span it did, from 1920-1992, was pure coincidence (unless you subscribe to belief in a divine creator, and specifically a creator that puts each person on Earth precisely when he/she/it plans to). Pure coincidence = luck. Plain and simple.

BTW, I imagine any of his heirs received money from the "I, Robot" movie. But, coincidentally, Isaac did not. IE, by luck, Isaac did not.

Stanley Kubrick, who helped Arthur C. Clarke bring 2001 to film, lived 81 years, dying in 1999 of natural causes. This was right about the time CGI was appearing in movies. By coincedence ... by luck ... he did not live long enough to even consider putting out with Clarke an edited or updated version of 2001.

The problem I have with your point is that you are essentially saying that you need to exist in order to benefit from capitalism. I mean sure, technically thats true, but its also such a vague statement that becomes sort of meaningless.

Furthermore, opportunities also need to first exist before they can be grasped and profited from under capitalism. Again, technically thats true, but its again a vague statement. Clearly Asimov and Clarke couldn't benefit from CGI because they were dead by the time it became useful for their works. So according to you, they weren't lucky because their existence and the opportunities existence didn't coincide.

Say that Asimov and Clarke were both born later and were still alive today. Their existence and the existence of the opportunity that CGI provides coincide. According to you, now they are lucky and therefor they will benefit because of capitalism, right? Wrong. Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it. You need to grasp the opportunity, by having the superior idea on how to exploit the opportunity, and only then will you profit.

Think about it. Right now, you and billions of other people exist side by side with millions of opportunities. But only a handful of people will profit from those opportunities, because they are the people with the smartest ideas, while everyone else does not. Yet according to you, those people have the same sort of luck as Asimov would have had if he had lived long enough to witness the might of CGI.

I would say that you can't speak of being unlucky when you simply don't exist at a moment to profit from an opportunity, nor are you unlucky when you can't profit from an opportunity that simply does not exist when you are around.

Michel, I am often surprised when someone is saying similar things to you, you overlook this. Furthermore, while there is some truth to some of Dena's recent posts, I was attempting to provide a more nuanced version of reality to both what she said and what you have said.

Let's not "nitpick". Here's an example you should find easier to follow.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov died in 1992. His Foundation books have never been made into movies. "I, RObot" was, but about a decade after his death.

I am willing to bet he also was a rich man, but he died of "Heart and kidney failure related to AIDS". Even so, he was 72 at his death.

The worlds/galaxy he described from the Robot series to the Foundation series took a lot of description. I think it could be fair to say that up to and including 1992, a movie trying to show what he described would have been quite inadequate. If he had said, there's no way I'd let my book be made into a movie because movie technology could not adequately convey my words, I would not be surprised.

He was born and died too early for CGI. That his existence occupied the time span it did, from 1920-1992, was pure coincidence (unless you subscribe to belief in a divine creator, and specifically a creator that puts each person on Earth precisely when he/she/it plans to). Pure coincidence = luck. Plain and simple.

BTW, I imagine any of his heirs received money from the "I, Robot" movie. But, coincidentally, Isaac did not. IE, by luck, Isaac did not.

Stanley Kubrick, who helped Arthur C. Clarke bring 2001 to film, lived 81 years, dying in 1999 of natural causes. This was right about the time CGI was appearing in movies. By coincedence ... by luck ... he did not live long enough to even consider putting out with Clarke an edited or updated version of 2001.

The problem I have with your point is that you are essentially saying that you need to exist in order to benefit from capitalism. I mean sure, technically thats true, but its also such a vague statement that becomes sort of meaningless.

Furthermore, opportunities also need to first exist before they can be grasped and profited from under capitalism. Again, technically thats true, but its again a vague statement. Clearly Asimov and Clarke couldn't benefit from CGI because they were dead by the time it became useful for their works. So according to you, they weren't lucky because their existence and the opportunities existence didn't coincide.

Say that Asimov and Clarke were both born later and were still alive today. Their existence and the existence of the opportunity that CGI provides coincide. According to you, now they are lucky and therefor they will benefit because of capitalism, right? Wrong. Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it. You need to grasp the opportunity, by having the superior idea on how to exploit the opportunity, and only then will you profit.

Think about it. Right now, you and billions of other people exist side by side with millions of opportunities. But only a handful of people will profit from those opportunities, because they are the people with the smartest ideas, while everyone else does not. Yet according to you, those people have the same sort of luck as Asimov would have had if he had lived long enough to witness the might of CGI.

I would say that you can't speak of being unlucky when you simply don't exist at a moment to profit from an opportunity, nor are you unlucky when you can't profit from an opportunity that simply does not exist when you are around.

I believe you have inferred a fair amount about what I said that I did not say nor implied. To take your first paragraph and put it in nearly your words but to more accurately reflect what I believe "When you exist determines what benefits you do or don't reap."

"Unlucky" is a response to a pure chance event. You cannot determine in advance when you roll a six-sided die what side it will land on. What you wanted it to land on and your response to it has no bearing on the fact that the phenomenon is random.

I did not say "Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it", nor can it be inferred. At best, one could say such a person might seem at first to have the first and best chance of reaping the benefits, but it might not work out that way. Clearly, I did not say "If I lived when Bell lived, I would have been the one to create the telephone." Nor did I say, "Dang that Bell, he lived earlier than I did, I am so unlucky" or "I lived when Bell did but that rat b45+4rd under cut me and put the phone out first."

I could write more, but I am winding down from a long work week, want to go out tonight and then wind up working a fair portion of the weekend, so I am not going to delve into further explanation for now. Hopefully, mu shorter post was succinct and explanatory enough for you.

I did not say "Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it", nor can it be inferred. At best, one could say such a person might seem at first to have the first and best chance of reaping the benefits, but it might not work out that way. Clearly, I did not say "If I lived when Bell lived, I would have been the one to create the telephone." Nor did I say, "Dang that Bell, he lived earlier than I did, I am so unlucky" or "I lived when Bell did but that rat b45+4rd under cut me and put the phone out first."

Now you are contradicting yourself. You say that luck gets rewarded by capitalism because luck determines whether you exist at the right moment to profit from a certain opportunity. Thats your 'luck' factor right? But now you agree with me that existing at the right moment is not actually any guarantee that you will also profit from the opportunity. Indeed, the vast majority of people will never benefit from any of the opportunities that exist in their time. In order to benefit from an opportunity, you need to exploit it first, and in order to exploit it, you need to work smart. Hence, capitalism does not reward luck, it rewards smart work.

I did not say "Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it", nor can it be inferred. At best, one could say such a person might seem at first to have the first and best chance of reaping the benefits, but it might not work out that way. Clearly, I did not say "If I lived when Bell lived, I would have been the one to create the telephone." Nor did I say, "Dang that Bell, he lived earlier than I did, I am so unlucky" or "I lived when Bell did but that rat b45+4rd under cut me and put the phone out first."

Now you are contradicting yourself. You say that luck gets rewarded by capitalism because luck determines whether you exist at the right moment to profit from a certain opportunity. Thats your 'luck' factor right? But now you agree with me that existing at the right moment is not actually any guarantee that you will also profit from the opportunity. Indeed, the vast majority of people will never benefit from any of the opportunities that exist in their time. In order to benefit from an opportunity, you need to exploit it first, and in order to exploit it, you need to work smart. Hence, capitalism does not reward luck, it rewards smart work.

Hmm...

It seems to me that many people here are losing sight of the fact that 'success' is a continuum, not a binary option. 'Success' means different things to different people, that is everyone has different standards of what it is to be a success.

To some, 'success' might be meeting their basic needs, and a few of their wants, on their own.

To others, 'success' might be having a loving family.

To still others, 'success' might be to ascend to the pinnacles of wealth and power.

The list goes on and on.

There are MANY standards of success.

I am sorry, but luck DOES play a large role in this.

One does need to be:

1. At the right place,
2. At the right time,
3. With the right set of abilities and skills,
4. With the correct resources,
5. With the correct 'idea',
and
6. With the correct set of drives and ambitions.

Then, if ALL of these conditions are met, then... You MIGHT be a success (according to your specific personal definition). If not, perhaps one needs to modify one's personal definition.

For an example, let us consider the 'Two Steves' plus one. Together, back in the day, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniack (along with Ronald Wayne) founded Apple Computer, today one of the largest if not THE largest corporation on the planet.

Wayne bailed out a couple of weeks later, afraid it would fail and he could lose significant assets. Jobs and the 'Woz' kept at it.

After some time passed, with a few successes under their belts, Jobs (the salesman and visionary) forced Wozniak (the electronics genius) out. Eventually, Jobs himself got forced out but then came back to rescue the corporation and remained at the helm of Apple until his death.

Which one (or more) of these three would you consider a success?

Wayne, who basically was just a footnote in history?

Wozniak, who had quite the cult following amongst the hardware geeks?

or Jobs, who had quite the fame in sales and financial circles?

Ya see, different people have different standards.

As to your 'work smarter' assertion compared to 'work harder'...

Yes, in these days of technology and automation, mental work is very important.

But... one STILL has to put in long hours with a lot of drive and ambition to get where you want to go.

But not even those who are considered to be 'great successes' are successful in everything they try.

Example: Warren Buffet. Yes, he is considered to be a highly successful investor. He has made a LOT of money.

But... Mr. Buffet has not been successful in EVERY investment of his. He frequently loses money. He just, for the most part, makes more money than he loses.

Sorry, but opportunity does not equate to automatic success.

You gotta work at it.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

It seems to me that many people here are losing sight of the fact that 'success' is a continuum, not a binary option. 'Success' means different things to different people, that is everyone has different standards of what it is to be a success.

If we are talking about success in general, I agree with you that there are many ways have it. But, when we are talking about success in terms of capitalism, it really just comes down to making a profit, and the bigger your profit the more success you have.

I am sorry, but luck DOES play a large role in this.

One does need to be:

1. At the right place,
2. At the right time,
3. With the right set of abilities and skills,
4. With the correct resources,
5. With the correct 'idea',
and
6. With the correct set of drives and ambitions.

Then, if ALL of these conditions are met, then... You MIGHT be a success (according to your specific personal definition). If not, perhaps one needs to modify one's personal definition.

That is assuming that success is derived from the accidental convergence of those 6 factors, without anyone having any control over it. Thats not how it works. The time and place merely provide the context in which ideas are formed, and if an idea fails its not because the time and place aren't right, it would be because the idea is just bad.

Ability and skill determine whether you can come up with an idea, as well as the direction the idea will take.

Gaining access to resources is also not luck based. People don't throw money at start ups at random, they throw money at start ups that have a good sales pitch. In other words, resources depends on your ability to sell your idea. Again, this relates back to working smart rather than working hard. You can have a technically brilliant idea, and still fail, while a technically inferior idea succeeds massively only because they got a smarter sales pitch.

Now as for getting a good idea, if you have the skills and abilities, a good idea will come to you. Again, that is not a matter of luck, ideas don't fall from the sky and hit people at random, they come to people who have the right skills and abilities. Skills and abilities they have honed over time through practice and study.

Now as for having the drive and ambition, clearly you need some if you want to translate an idea into something that can be bought or sold. But ambition is not a prerequisite for success. Plenty of highly ambitious and driven people have utterly failed, while plenty of people with only a little bit of ambition have gotten rich from their ideas.

For an example, let us consider the 'Two Steves' plus one. Together, back in the day, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniack (along with Ronald Wayne) founded Apple Computer, today one of the largest if not THE largest corporation on the planet.

Wayne bailed out a couple of weeks later, afraid it would fail and he could lose significant assets. Jobs and the 'Woz' kept at it.

After some time passed, with a few successes under their belts, Jobs (the salesman and visionary) forced Wozniak (the electronics genius) out. Eventually, Jobs himself got forced out but then came back to rescue the corporation and remained at the helm of Apple until his death.

Which one (or more) of these three would you consider a success?

Wayne, who basically was just a footnote in history?

Wozniak, who had quite the cult following amongst the hardware geeks?

or Jobs, who had quite the fame in sales and financial circles?

Ya see, different people have different standards.

If we look at this from a strictly capitalist point of view, then it was Jobs who was successful. And mind you, I was only talking about the Capitalist viewpoint.

As to your 'work smarter' assertion compared to 'work harder'...

Yes, in these days of technology and automation, mental work is very important.

But... one STILL has to put in long hours with a lot of drive and ambition to get where you want to go.

No, not really. Putting in long hours with a lot of drive and ambition is absolutely no guarantee for any kind of capitalist success. We live in a world where a kid who build a little computer program in his parents basement can earn millions of dollars selling it to Google or Microsoft, while a guy who works 60 hour weeks full of passion and ambition on a computer program developed in house by Microsoft can lose his job after the program is finished.

Sorry, but opportunity does not equate to automatic success.

You gotta work at it.

I never said that opportunity equates success. In fact, I said the opposite. My point was that in capitalism luck doesn't get rewarded. Nor does hard work get rewarded. Only smart work gets rewarded. Even so, smart work is still work, meaning you still need to work to get rich.

But the problem is that not everyone is capable of working smart, in fact the majority of people isn't capable of that, so capitalism will never reward them. That is why politicians and successful people have invented the lie that hard work gets rewarded, because that covers up the unfair nature of capitalism. It makes it seem that everyone who is willing to put in the hours can end up being a CEO of a large corporation, and more insidiously, it suggests that everyone who does not end up being a CEO of a large corporation has failed because they didn't work hard enough and not because the system is unfair to 99% of the people. It also gives them a convenient excuse when every time someone criticizes the fact that they are so obscenely rich because they can claim that they have earned because they worked hard at it and that the person criticizing them is just jealous and lazy (if this sounds familiar its because its basically what the Republican party tells people).

Let’s Bust Some Myths About Fluency.
http://www.babbel.com/magazine/myths-of-fluency?slc=engmag-a37-vid-bv12-fluencymyths-tb&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=cd_engall_gen_cus_fluencymyths

Janne, Seti@home is an American based and hosted website, and therefore understandably is primarily for those where English is their first language. Of course anyone from any country is fully welcomed here, as it is an international project, and there are already various forums and threads where people prefer to speak in a particular language.

?
I speak English sort of.
There is already a SETI international forum.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_index.php
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/kiosk/
What do you mean?
I know there are SETI threads for Germans and Italians.
If we meet ET how to communicate to it?
In English?

I know there are SETI threads for Germans and Italians.

Why isn't there one for Swedish speakers?

Because we have to start to learn to speak, read, write English in school when we are 10 years old.
Some even earlier when they are whatching TV and using computer games...

It seems to me that many people here are losing sight of the fact that 'success' is a continuum, not a binary option. 'Success' means different things to different people, that is everyone has different standards of what it is to be a success.

If we are talking about success in general, I agree with you that there are many ways have it. But, when we are talking about success in terms of capitalism, it really just comes down to making a profit, and the bigger your profit the more success you have.

Then better than 99% of people aren't playing that game. Even most what you would call capitalists aren't playing that game. So why are you trying to use a metric that most people aren't attempting and using it to claim that the system is unfair to them?

Far better than 99% of humans have a level where they have "enough" including to cover anything they think might come up. Once they reach that they don't spend every waking minute trying to grab more. Doesn't mean if more falls into their lap they won't take it, but they have their "enough."

http://www.lksupport.com/images/PersonalSuccessPlan.pdf

Develop a sincere desire for the things you want in life. A burning desire is the greatest motivator of every human action. The desire for success implants "success consciousness," which in turn creates a vigorous and ever-increasing "habit of success."

Once you have everything, well?

---

To be honest with you, probably initially yes. Then when dialogue has commenced we can move on to discourse in other languages.

I got Ođđasat in Sámegielat for you:)
http://se.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1megielat
Or Uutiset if you know the Finn language.
Hei kaikki. Hyvää Yötä:)

Then better than 99% of people aren't playing that game. Even most what you would call capitalists aren't playing that game. So why are you trying to use a metric that most people aren't attempting and using it to claim that the system is unfair to them?

No, 99% of the people aren't having success playing the game, so they redefine success in order to save their self worth. Being a loser in one game isn't so hard if you can pretend to yourself that you never really played to win in that game to begin with, and that you are an awesome winner in your own game.

In any case, even if these people pretend to not play the game, they are in fact still in the game. It is not possible to opt out of capitalism on your own.

On top of that, the 1% who are having success in capitalism have success in such a way that it has huge consequences for the society they live in. If you truly win in the game of capitalism, you become more powerful than governments and you will have an unreasonably large amount of influence on policy that affects everyone.

If you win in your own, made up game where success is defined as having 'enough' (a house, a wife, two kids and a car) its nice for you, but it doesn't really affect anyone outside of your little family.