this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
388 points (91.3% liked)
Economics
1898 readers
27 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Humans invented and seem to naturally gravitate to capitalism, it's not some cosmic evil imposed on them. They're still a virus.
Do we naturally gravitate towards capitalism? I'd say we gravitate towards communism on family to tribal scales. Seems like capitalism or its precursor takes hold after one group conquers another and exploitation begins.
Closer, Capitalism is just another development in class society that arose alongside industrialization. Tribal communism is different from post-Socialist communism, in that tribes are small units and Communism would be one massive unit. Just like tribal communism, feudalism, and socialism, capitalism arises alongside material development and will fade with it as well, through revolution.
it only took ~12 000 years to "naturally gravitate to capitalism"
I dunno man, ever since someone invented money, there always were rich and poor people, and class division
Capitalism arose well after money, it's a specific mode of production.
Yeah, because the previous prelevant system, feudalism, was so fair and not at all exploitative of the poor by the rich
Feudalism was also exploitative, but in a different manner and character as the class character was different. I don't see what your point is, here.
using money does not mean it's capitalism
but i do think that capitalism is better than feudalism and most, if not all that came before
but i also think that we need to move further, or we're getting screwed
Wrong again. The earliest date possible you could put on the emergence of class societies, would be ~12k years ago with the agricultural revolution. Modern humans emerged about 300k years ago, and 2 million years if you want to consider other close relatives.
So most charitably, class societies have only existed for 4% of human history, or 0.6%
Okay, I said "when money was invented" not "when humanity emerged" mr WRONG AGAIN 🙄 Learn to read if you want to be bitchy on the Internet
The bougieoise and lackeys are a tiny minority compared to the many good humans
Sure, I'm sure its just the bourgeoisie, while you're enjoying your iPhone and Nike shoes
...and lackeys
It would be nice if communism was an emergent behavior of humanity. It's got to be forced from the top down with a vanguard.
Vanguards don't force anything, they drive the spearpoint. In Russia, China, Cuba, etc the vanguards have all gained legitimacy through mass support of the working masses. You have it backwards.
We need a real path to communism. That means we need to completely control the population. It can be a mix of manufactured support and oppressive support, it doesn't matter too much. Any deviation from the path needs severe punishment.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Why does any of this "complete control" need to exist? Genuinely, what do you even think Communism is?
A stateless and classless society can't come about without major conditioning. We are on a very short timeline and we can pussyfoot around with half measures.
What do you mean when you say we are on a "short timeline" for reaching statelessness and classless society? Such a society can only be achieved gradually through a long period of Socialism. Revolution is necessary, but afterwards we must build towards it.
Our capitalistic tendencies is our killing our planet. I'd estimate we have about 200 years to change or risk real extinction. I'm firmly in the anarchist camp but we don't have the time to gradually fit a form we're not naturally attributed to.
Climate change is addressible through Socialism, we don't need to reach full statelessness and classless society to consider Climate Change conquered. Look to the PRC, which appears to be leading the charge in tackling Climate Change, it's still Socialist and yet is making major strides.
I didn't say we need communism now. I'm saying we need a strong cohesive collective to address most of our sociological problems. It would be a form or socialism by name.
You imply that we need strong and oppressive measures to get there. For the bourgeoisie, yes, but not for the proletariat. I think that's a bit odd to come from a supposed Anarchist.
I think it is, but the top is enforcing capitalism and reacts to anything that smells like communism.