Perhaps a cursory look at the study of anthropology will educate you on this. Hunter gatherer societies that are still in existence today are a more or less sufficient example of what human societies looked like before the neolithic revolution. Further, your math is wrong. As I said, humans have been around in their present evolutionary form for around 200,000 years. It was not until the neolithic revolution, circa 10,000-5,000 BC that civilization developed. If you do the math you will see that from the neolithic to current day is only approximately 2.5-5% of our history as modern homo sapien, not to even mention our evolutionary ancestors. Not a very large percentage to make an argument about the nature of mankind.
Who's to say what human societies looked like before written history? This is still studied, debated and argued. I don't remember using any math to be wrong or otherwise, but using the time period between history and prehistory to develop public policy, especially when it cannot be proven, would seem ludicrous to even the least reasonable person. The most primitive hunter/gatherer societies in both the human and animal world still have their hierarchies, and the higher up you are the more you are rewarded.
The rich owners of wealth are, by definition parasitic.
Huh? They got rich by osmosis? Except, I suppose for those who inherited wealth, the others who achieved it did so by actually doing something profitable.
Many people use the absurd argument that we need rich people to give us jobs. This is nonsense. Work is carried out socially because, as a society we need to produce things. Even if there were no capitalists, rich people, work would still take place, albeit, production would be organized in much more democratic and horizontal way.
Well, the unfortunate reality is that someone needs to own the means of production, it follows that it is the rich who do, it is not absurd. As a society we do not need to produce things, only survive. What you are doing is putting the cart before the horse. Necessity being the mother of invention, we produce things because we want or need them, the inventors get paid to invent, the workers get paid to produce, and someone has to have the venture capital to start it up, simple. I don't know about you but I can't afford the equipment I use for employment, but I'm glad someone else can, and I don't work just for the fun of it.
What you are confusing, and fail to understand is this;
All wealth is produced through the labour of the working class. The working class has no ownership over the wealth THEY produce, rather it is appropriated into the hands of capitalists. Capitalists do nothing except for siphon off wealth that is created through the labour of workers.
You are the one confused, wealth would not be created without capital, and unless the working class are willing to put up the capital they are not deserving of ownership of the wealth they create, only the wages they are able to negotiate. Socialism wants all the reward with none of the risk.
It actually sounds like a way to punish those with more ability.
I'm only quoting the Marxist mantra, I think. They think it is Utopia, but you and I know it for what it is.
