How the Son of a Travelling Salesman and Con Artist Became Billionaire John D. Rockefeller Thanks to Mom & Pop Capitalism
Some thoughts about Nicaragua and how whatever bad things the rules of a society don't prohibit will eventually happen
America’s first billionaire (and back in 1916 when he obtained this wealth a billion dollars was worth what $30 billion is worth today), John D. Rockefeller, began life in circumstances that provided no clue he’d get so rich. But he did! What enabled him to do it?
The answer to this important question is simple: The rules and laws of capitalist society that existed when Rockefeller lived did not prevent a person from becoming a billionaire. On the contrary, the rules and laws and corresponding dominant cultural norms gave a green light to Rockefeller’s business dealings, as I invite you, dear reader, to contemplate. Note that before Rockefeller was born there was very little economic inequality among whites*; it was a Mom & Pop kind of capitalism. But because it was a kind of capitalism with all of the capitalist laws and rules and cultural norms, nothing prevented it from becoming substantially more unequal by the time Rockefeller was born and more so during his lifetime.
A very brief biography of Rockefeller focused on how he became so rich is “Here’s How John D Rockefeller Became the First Billionaire,” from which I quote below and which I suggest you read.
John D Rockefeller was born in Richford, New York in July 1839. His father was a traveling salesman and con artist, and his mother was a religious woman who taught John about working and finances. Rockefeller had a knack for arithmetic, which would later benefit him as a businessman. At around 14 years of age, Rockefeller and his family moved to Cleveland, Ohio. He began working for farmers nearby but disliked the amount of physical labor required. Rockefeller decided to attend Folsom’s Mercantile College, where he studied penmanship and bookkeeping practices and transactions. He graduated in 1855 and started looking for bookkeeping positions around the city of Cleveland.
After several failed attempts to secure a job, he was hired as an assistant bookkeeper by a merchant company named Hewitt and Tuttle. He learned common bookkeeping practices and started participating in trading ventures at the company. In 1859, Rockefeller left Hewitt and Tuttle to explore his own business interests. He went in on a business venture with Maurice B. Clark. They invested $4,000 total to start the Clark and Rockefeller company. Clark and Rockefeller were commission merchants who mainly specialized in selling produce. They made significant profits selling meats, grain, and hay to the federal government during the American Civil War.
As you read this brief biography (please do; it’s very short) ask yourself: At each step on his rise to becoming a billionaire, did Rockefeller do anything that violated the rules and laws and cultural norms of the capitalist society?
Rockefeller bought property (perfectly fair and square in a society based on money and buying and selling things, unlike in an egalitarian society.)
Rockefeller used the property he bought and the labor of workers he hired to produce commodities that he sold at a profit (perfectly fair and square in a society that says making a profit is a supremely wise and morally good thing to do.)
Rockefeller made astute deals with other business enterprises (perfectly fair and square in a society based on making economic contractual agreements for mutual financial benefit.)
The idea that whatever inequality the rules and laws and cultural norms of a society permit will eventually develop is illustrated nicely by Robert Reich, who wrote:
"Charles and David Koch should not be blamed for having more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together. Nor should they be condemned for their petrochemical empire. As far as I know, they’ve played by the rules and obeyed the laws." --Robert Reich, in his blog article
(See a screen shot of it here also)
Whether it would be Johnny Rockefeller or Johnny Smith or Mary Jones, etc., the capitalist society that Rockefeller grew up in was a society that was inevitably going to become one with a few billionaires ruling anti-democratically over many have-nots—exactly what it has now become in the United States today. It was a society in which a shrewd, savvy and lucky person would become a billionaire. It was a society in which all the necessary ingredients existed for enormous wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a single person.
At each initial small step along the road to this concentration of wealth, a person gains just a little bit more wealth than other people. Then this person becomes just a little bit more powerful than other people because in a society based on money, money is power. With this little bit of extra power the person bends government and other non-government officials a bit more towards his liking than less powerful people are able to do. With this new control of government and other officials, the person gets even richer, and hence even more powerful, and then even richer again until there is a billionaire, eventually a Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, etc., and then there is a billionaire ruling plutocracy just as we have today. The story of Johnny Rockefeller becoming a billionaire illustrates the process that the rules and laws and cultural norms of capitalism—even Mom & Pop capitalism—sets in motion.
What about the ‘mixed economy’ in Nicaragua that is for the people?
I don’t really know anything about Nicaragua except from what I learned on a recent zoom call hosted by Green Renaissance Sovereign Rights Movement (which I belong to) that featured two individuals (one a sports announcer at Nicaragua’s very popular Radio Ya), both very supportive of and knowledgeable about the current Nicaraguan government whose president is Daniel Ortega. (Go here for where I believe there will soon be a recording of this zoom call posted.) Based on what these individuals explained, I believe the following is true (I am happy to be corrected, however):
The Nicaraguan government is a freely elected one, with a parliamentary style of government.
The current government headed by Daniel Ortega’s FSLN is very popular because it does things that benefit the great majority of the population such as provide healthcare to all and provide deeds to the land that small farmers farm.
The government aims to democratize the economy by making it serve the great majority instead of the very rich. The economy is currently a ‘mixed economy’ with private businesses but a government that intervenes on behalf of ordinary people in various ways. Thus the rules and laws and cultural norms of capitalism still prevail.
In 2018 there was an attempted coup d’etat waged by the pro-rich right wing forces; it was violent and supported by the United States government, but ultimately failed, leaving the Ortega government in power as of today.
Many of the right wing criminals (meaning participants in the failed coup d’etat) have fled Nicaragua.
The right wing has very little representation in the parliament, but it has lots of money.
Here’s the thing.
I believe that the Achilles Heel of the pro-people Nicaraguan government is its apparent acceptance of the key rules and laws and cultural norms of capitalism. I believe that the failure to shape—or at least explicitly AIM to shape—Nicaragua by the very opposite rules and laws and cultural norms of egalitarianism (read about what egalitarianism is here) makes the people of Nicaragua a sitting duck for the eventual rise of the pro-rich right wing in one form or another at some time in the future by Nicaraguan versions of the shrewd and savvy and lucky Johnny Rockefeller (who no doubt will have the backing of the CIA). In a society based on money, as Nicaragua is today, money is power and if it is able to become concentrated (by perfectly legal business operations) in the hands of a few then genuine democracy cannot long survive. That is what I worry about regarding Nicaragua.
A mixed economy of small businesses is one in which a dangerous big-business person will eventually emerge.
Read here how you can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement to make it impossible for there to be a ruling billionaire plutocracy treating the have-nots like dirt.
* “In the late 18th century, “incomes were more equally distributed in colonial America than in any other place that can be measured,” according to Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. The richest 1 percent of households held only 8.5% of total income in the late 18th century. Some reasons for this include the ease that the average American had in buying frontier land, which was abundant at the time, and an overall scarcity of labor in non-slaveholding areas, which forced landowners to pay higher wages. There were also relatively few poor people in America at the time, since only those with at least some money could afford to come to America.[19]
“In 1860, the top 1 percent collected almost one-third of property incomes, as compared to 13.7% in 1774. There was a great deal of competition for land in the cities and non-frontier areas during this time period, with those who had already acquired land becoming richer than everyone else. The newly burgeoning financial sector also greatly rewarded the already-wealthy, as they were the only ones financially sound enough to invest.[19] "
Source here