How long will capitalism last?

[Shiranu]

"muh human nature"
this meme needs to die.
capitalism has existed for around 250 years in its modern form
claiming its natural to humans makes no sense

And what economic system existed before "modern capitalism"?

Actually let's take it back a step; if you are going to snark off... at least be correct. Modern capitalism is relatively the same as "pre-modern" capitalism as was practiced in the mercantile city states (particularly in the German speaking regions and Northern Italy) as far back as the late 1400's. This was due to the mass death of peasant workers during the Black Death... less workers meant the demand for them increased and thus they could charge more for their services. This created the first group resembling the middle class and started this mass demand for capital to use for purchasing luxuries.

(And I realise that was an EXTREMELY brief reason and doesn't cover a whole other slew of factors that went into the establishment of mercantile states coming out of the HRE... but I am not here to write a 10 page college paper for you.)

That is of course taking a very Euro-centric view that ignores Mesopotamian and Asian economic systems as well as pretending the Romans and Greeks never happened... but we will let that one slide.

Let's put that aside though and just address the basic message of what you said; with the system before capitalism (Merchantalism... feudalism... etc)... if not capitalism of money... was roughly the same; you built power (capital) to acquire limited resources. The only difference was that your capital was how strong your sword and prestige was rather than how large your wallet and bank account was.

There are very few human societies that have ever operated on an egalitarian style and they all have one common characteristic; they are extremely close-knit tribal communities. Even modern communes that try to replicate that on an extremely small scale have been historically unsuccessful.

Human nature may annoy you all you let it... but it will not change or die just because you don't like it. The simple reality is that once a society passes the most small scale of hunter-gathering survival... the laws of supply and demand over luxuries takes hold. And even in small scale communes... when the supply of food decreases it is the one with the most social or strength capital who comes out on top.

tl;dr - It's easier to say "capitalism" as a catch-all phrase rather than "An economic system practiced since mankind left it's strictly hunter-gather roots behind that is based on the accusation of power (but not always capital) used to exert control over other parties also seeking to acquire power (but not always capital) and to obtain possessions otherwise not obtainable without said power (not always of the capital time) that have values based on their quantitative supply or difficulty to manufacture and the relative demand of said product within a society."

Just not as catchy I suppose.

[Jannabear]

And what economic system existed before "modern capitalism"?

Actually let's take it back a step; if you are going to snark off... at least be correct. Modern capitalism is relatively the same as "pre-modern" capitalism as was practiced in the mercantile city states (particularly in the German speaking regions and Northern Italy) as far back as the late 1400's. This was due to the mass death of peasant workers during the Black Death... less workers meant the demand for them increased and thus they could charge more for their services. This created the first group resembling the middle class and started this mass demand for capital to use for purchasing luxuries.

(And I realise that was an EXTREMELY brief reason and doesn't cover a whole other slew of factors that went into the establishment of mercantile states coming out of the HRE... but I am not here to write a 10 page college paper for you.)

That is of course taking a very Euro-centric view that ignores Mesopotamian and Asian economic systems as well as pretending the Romans and Greeks never happened... but we will let that one slide.

Let's put that aside though and just address the basic message of what you said; with the system before capitalism (Merchantalism... feudalism... etc)... if not capitalism of money... was roughly the same; you built power (capital) to acquire limited resources. The only difference was that your capital was how strong your sword and prestige was rather than how large your wallet and bank account was.

There are very few human societies that have ever operated on an egalitarian style and they all have one common characteristic; they are extremely close-knit tribal communities. Even modern communes that try to replicate that on an extremely small scale have been historically unsuccessful.

Human nature may annoy you all you let it... but it will not change or die just because you don't like it. The simple reality is that once a society passes the most small scale of hunter-gathering survival... the laws of supply and demand over luxuries takes hold. And even in small scale communes... when the supply of food decreases it is the one with the most social or strength capital who comes out on top.

tl;dr - It's easier to say "capitalism" as a catch-all phrase rather than "An economic system practiced since mankind left it's strictly hunter-gather roots behind that is based on the accusation of power (but not always capital) used to exert control over other parties also seeking to acquire power (but not always capital) and to obtain possessions otherwise not obtainable without said power (not always of the capital time) that have values based on their quantitative supply or difficulty to manufacture and the relative demand of said product within a society."

Just not as catchy I suppose.

all because capitalism is the path humanity took and what was sustainable during that time and the past few hundred years does not make it human nature
we aren't purely instinct based.

[Shiranu]

all because capitalism is the path humanity took and what was sustainable during that time and the past few hundred years does not make it human nature
we aren't purely instinct based.

And again... let's assume that before complex civilization everyone lived in perfect egalitarian societies (which is wrong but whatever). Instead of 7500 generations... that brings it down to about 4500+ generations of humans have all lived more-or-less exactly the same; whoever has the most "capital" (power and prestige -> money and land) can get the nicest things and therefor you want more "capital" to get nicer things.

That is not a "few hundred years"... this has been going on since at the very least 4000 B.C. ... about 3800 years more than "a few hundred".

And this has nothing to do with instinct but rather logistics; there is only so much of any given resource that the society with power make sure their interests are secure (often at the cost of conflict with other societies). When it comes to crafted objects this becomes even more pronounced because you can only make so much of x due to time and talent restrains and thus the capital of power or money becomes important at an even smaller scale.


Sustainability has not changed. If anything sustainability is decreasing as our environment is destroyed by global climate change and deforestation/pollution. More than likely conflict will escalate rather than deescalate over the next hundred or two years simply because resources will decrease and as nice as singing kumbiaya sounds... that's not what happens when you are trying to put food on your people's plate.

I'm sorry... but this is not something you can just dismiss with one or two sentences. If you want to write a paper proving hundreds of years of political science... sociology... anthropology... psychology... history... (etc. etc.) wrong then by all means go for it. But you are the one making the outlandish claim that it is not part of human history nor does it have anything to do with resources (supply and demand) so you have to back that up.

[Jannabear]

And again... let's assume that before complex civilization everyone lived in perfect egalitarian societies (which is wrong but whatever). Instead of 7500 generations... that brings it down to about 4500+ generations of humans have all lived more-or-less exactly the same; whoever has the most "capital" (power and prestige -> money and land) can get the nicest things and therefor you want more "capital" to get nicer things.

That is not a "few hundred years"... this has been going on since at the very least 4000 B.C. ... about 3800 years more than "a few hundred".

And this has nothing to do with instinct but rather logistics; there is only so much of any given resource that the society with power make sure their interests are secure (often at the cost of conflict with other societies). When it comes to crafted objects this becomes even more pronounced because you can only make so much of x due to time and talent restrains and thus the capital of power or money becomes important at an even smaller scale.


Sustainability has not changed. If anything sustainability is decreasing as our environment is destroyed by global climate change and deforestation/pollution. More than likely conflict will escalate rather than deescalate over the next hundred or two years simply because resources will decrease and as nice as singing kumbiaya sounds... that's not what happens when you are trying to put food on your people's plate.

I'm sorry... but this is not something you can just dismiss with one or two sentences. If you want to write a paper proving hundreds of years of political science... sociology... anthropology... psychology... history... (etc. etc.) wrong then by all means go for it. But you are the one making the outlandish claim that it is not part of human history nor does it have anything to do with resources (supply and demand) so you have to back that up.

I'm a marxist, I'm arguing that capitalism is becoming unsustainable.

[Baruch]

Jannabear ... agree to disagree.  Marxism (not the straw man invented by Allen Dulles) is a theory that ties social/political/economic relations with the means of production/survival.  We had one kind of arrangement when we were hunter/gatherer.  We had another arrangement when we domesticated plants and animals.  We have had yet another arrangement once we had industrialization with excess carbon fuels (not wood or dung).  Marx didn't live to see the Internet, so his analysis only goes to the mid 19th century (even if you agree with the analysis).

My view is that human beings have no nature, we are a universal animal/machine.  We have very little built in programming, we develop thru a long childhood in the context of a complicated culture that has a life of its own (language for example).  Sure there is a little programming (distinguishing up/down from sideways ... to avoid falling).  For simpler creatures, there is a short childhood with little parenting, you are born with a pattern that you slavishly follow.

Of course the point of this is that the Elite in every society is trying to objectify/tame/monetize free-range humans.  We are cattle to them.  By setting up a totalitarianism, they are creating an artificial/cultural Matrix ... so that our thinking and behavior follow simplified and controllable lines (there are only two parties possible, D or R).  But you choose to be a slave or not ... it is in your power to say no ... but it isn't in your power to avoid the negative consequences of anti-social behavior (as defined by the Elites).

[Unbeliever]

Have you defined what capitalism is yet?

I didn't know that was up to me...

[Shiranu]

I'm a marxist, I'm arguing that capitalism is becoming unsustainable.

You are not arguing anything, you are just saying, "nuh uh!" anytime someone disagrees with you.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I didn't know that was up to me...

Well, you are making a claim about it...

[Jannabear]

You are not arguing anything, you are just saying, "nuh uh!" anytime someone disagrees with you.

If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.

[Baruch]

If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.

Profit mostly means finance, not manufacturing.  Profit at the grocery is 1%.  Profit mostly comes thru usury.  And usury isn't sustainable, it is inherently unstable.  So finance driven economies go up, down, up, down as finance booms and busts.  But starting in 2008, the US and the West decided to throw the rule book out ... the Elite can bet all they want, and never lose any sleep or any money.  The taxpayer will pay for all of their errors of judgement.  How can this be, since I haven't seen the cops come and take all my shit and lucre?  They have the warrant for all your assets and all your income (to pay for 2008/2009) ... they just haven't served it yet.  Need the cover of WW III to fake the necessity of it.  There will be no recovery from this Depression .. smoke and mirrors, and corpses, just like the 1930s.

[Cavebear]

With the outrageous elements in charge, all regulation is gutted.  And you forgot to give Churchill credit for that quote.  Have you oppressed India lately?

Churchill and I are related.  So I considered his statement rather as public property.  Having up the rights, so to speak.

All I take from India is tea I purchase.  Can't recall oppressing any Indians here or there best I can tell.  Did you have anyone in mind? 

[Baruch]

Churchill and I are related.  So I considered his statement rather as public property.  Having up the rights, so to speak.

All I take from India is tea I purchase.  Can't recall oppressing any Indians here or there best I can tell.  Did you have anyone in mind?

Meaning do I accept "White guilt"?  No I do not, I am not a supporter of collective guilt of any kind ... that kind of thing fuels anti-Semitism.  But I think Shiranu accepts "White guilt".

And of course, since you weren't  party to the Raj yourself, you can hardly be blamed.  I am distantly related to Jack Kennedy ... but I don't feel responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.

You say that as if a marxist state would do any better. What was the soviets' track record on environmentalism and resource use again?

When people are involved, expect fuckups.

[Shiranu]

If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.

That's completely irrelevant to anything I have said... nor even accurate to what I believe.

[Cavebear]

We have entered the US age of the Merchantile Princes.  You have to pay to play, donate to say, and cheat all the way.

Those who reach the financial top are guaranteed a place at the table (er, Cabinet).