No, you didn’t say so directly. But one could surmise this interpretation when it is assumed that organizing one’s life around a symbolic system (money) brings educational advantages which somehow surpass those who don’t use it. You accuse me of concentrating unduly upon willpower and effort, yet rather than focus upon the learnable techniques of problem solving, you start arguing for increased effort - the very position you criticised me of!
I would argue that being disenfranchised by one specific system does not make people “poor”. If a person’s work is worth something, then this is the case whether they are hired by a company and paid money to do it, or not. Direct cultural participation is the only meaningful “capital”. The discussion has gotten too circular for my liking, but the reason I introduced survivalism was as a counter-argument to the remarks of “financial success = survival”. The presumption that people need to allow themselves to be exploited in order to earn their right to survive. It is repugnant to me.
Yes, poor urbanites have more of a future as subsistence farmers than they do as “people looking for work”. Why look for work when there is work to be done everywhere? Organizing this amongst ourselves is a way off of the carnival ride.
