It seems to be popular to attack the "self-made man" idea as of late, but these attacks seem to be addressing the idea as "man in isolation" or "man with absolu

It seems to be popular to attack the "self-made man" idea as of late, but these attacks seem to be addressing the idea as "man in isolation" or "man with absolutely nothing." This runs in contrast to what the idea originally meant. Frederick Douglass considered[0], "Self-made men ... are what they are, without the aid of any of the favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results." For Douglass, the self-made man lacked "favoring conditions by which other men usually rise." This doesn't mean the self-made man cannot rely on that which is available to everyone in a given society (e.g., courts, roads, existing scientific knowledge, etc.). It simply means the self-made man is not one privileged over others. This being so, I would reason that your post doesn't really address the idea of the "self-made man." I also think the evaluation of Amazon is unfair. It is presented as Amazon taking value from society and never giving back. But what value has Amazon given in return to people? It is often more convenient to shop on Amazon. It offers a greater selection of products than local stores. It often offers lower prices. It also provides reviews to aid decision making. So, to frame it as Amazon only taking and never giving back is an unfair criticism. Does Amazon take more than it gives? Possibly. That's a difficult discussion though. As for individualism, yes it can definitely be abused. But, that alone is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea--particularly when one looks the benefits gained as described in the parent to your post. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men