I dunno man. “Capitalism” exists because it’s what we as a people just kind of decided to do. We picked it out of all the options available. I’m pretty sure that we would be doing the same thing regardless of whether or not something called “Capitalism” was ever actually named.
If we want to change that, we have to find a way to entirely change human nature, and that’s a really big ask. I’d love it if it actually happened, but I’m not betting on it.
A basic course in psychology would tell you that’s not how human nature works. “We” (those in power) “picked” (enforced) capitalism because it is the system that benefits them the most.
Some guy didn’t suddenly one day say “let’s do capitalism”. It evolved slowly from ancient barter systems from individual decisions made by everyone in society. These are complex interconnected systems of actions and decisions that evolved over time, fed in to each other, and grew in to capitalism.
Uh, yeah? that doesn’t disagree with what I’m saying. Naturally, as different people and groups came to power through the actions and decisions you mentioned, they acted in their own self-interest. Around late 19th/early 20th centuries, the property-owning class (the Bourgeoisie) started gaining power and the Aristocratic class started losing power, particularly due to the increasing importance of capital and industry in a country’s economy. Eventually, the Bourgeoisie overthrew the Aristocracy in many countries, and began developing and enforcing the ideas that worked the best for their interests, which we know today as capitalism. As for your belief that capitalism evolved from ancient barter systems, here’s the result from a very basic internet search:
The concept that humanity evolved from a pure barter economy to a monetary one is widely considered a myth by anthropologists and economic historians. Adam Smith popularized this narrative in The Wealth of Nations (1776), arguing that money emerged to solve the inefficiencies of barter, such as the “double coincidence of wants.” However, there is no historical or ethnographic evidence that any society relied exclusively on barter as its primary mode of exchange.
Instead of barter, early societies operated on credit, debt, and gift economies. In these systems, resources were distributed through social trust and communal obligations rather than direct, simultaneous swapping of goods. For example, if a baker needed meat, he would receive it from a butcher based on social expectation, with the debt settled later through various means, not an immediate trade of bagels for steaks.
Barter did exist, but it was not the precursor to money. It typically occurred between strangers or enemies who lacked the social trust required for credit, or as a temporary substitute for currency in times of crisis (e.g., post-Roman Europe or modern economic collapses). The “barter myth” persists largely because it serves as a simplified thought experiment in economics textbooks to illustrate market efficiency, not because it reflects historical reality.
The only disagreement we seem to have is that you claim it was a decision made only by those in power, and I claim it was decision via systemic interconnected feedback loops that everyone in society participated in over an extended period of time.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your claim. What I’m trying to say is that those in power have a disproportionate impact on society, which trivializes the impacts of other individuals and groups. If I decide that the color red should be banned because it’s ugly, the most I can do is rant about it on the internet, try to convince other people, or send letters to government officials who may not even read it. If a billionaire decides that the color red is ugly, they can ban it from their companies, pump out massive amounts of propaganda to support their opinion, and lobby for politicians who will write laws to ban the color red.
I dunno man. “Capitalism” exists because it’s what we as a people just kind of decided to do. We picked it out of all the options available. I’m pretty sure that we would be doing the same thing regardless of whether or not something called “Capitalism” was ever actually named.
If we want to change that, we have to find a way to entirely change human nature, and that’s a really big ask. I’d love it if it actually happened, but I’m not betting on it.
A basic course in psychology would tell you that’s not how human nature works. “We” (those in power) “picked” (enforced) capitalism because it is the system that benefits them the most.
Some guy didn’t suddenly one day say “let’s do capitalism”. It evolved slowly from ancient barter systems from individual decisions made by everyone in society. These are complex interconnected systems of actions and decisions that evolved over time, fed in to each other, and grew in to capitalism.
Uh, yeah? that doesn’t disagree with what I’m saying. Naturally, as different people and groups came to power through the actions and decisions you mentioned, they acted in their own self-interest. Around late 19th/early 20th centuries, the property-owning class (the Bourgeoisie) started gaining power and the Aristocratic class started losing power, particularly due to the increasing importance of capital and industry in a country’s economy. Eventually, the Bourgeoisie overthrew the Aristocracy in many countries, and began developing and enforcing the ideas that worked the best for their interests, which we know today as capitalism. As for your belief that capitalism evolved from ancient barter systems, here’s the result from a very basic internet search:
The only disagreement we seem to have is that you claim it was a decision made only by those in power, and I claim it was decision via systemic interconnected feedback loops that everyone in society participated in over an extended period of time.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your claim. What I’m trying to say is that those in power have a disproportionate impact on society, which trivializes the impacts of other individuals and groups. If I decide that the color red should be banned because it’s ugly, the most I can do is rant about it on the internet, try to convince other people, or send letters to government officials who may not even read it. If a billionaire decides that the color red is ugly, they can ban it from their companies, pump out massive amounts of propaganda to support their opinion, and lobby for politicians who will write laws to ban the color red.