You’re claiming that if capitalism tends to backslide into X, then X is part of capitalism. My point is that every system can backslide into something more primitive where a strong man makes the rules.
I mean, that’s such a broad take, any system can change, doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. My point was that the core mechanism of capitalism, which is the private ownership of capital and means of production, will always concentrate wealth and power further and further.
We have had systems of feudalism and monarchies that have stayed steady for hundreds of years. In pre history, people lived in communes for thousands of years.
What is unique about capitalism is that it must move as fast as possible, hence why it can’t stay steady, thereby it changing to late stage is part of the design (as in you can’t have capitalism without it), whereas any other system does not, through its own mechanism, move towards some kind of endgame.
I mean, that’s such a broad take, any system can change, doesn’t mean it’s inevitable
It also doesn’t mean that they’re all the same system. So, if capitalism is one of the many systems that can backslide into authoritarianism doesn’t mean that authoritarianism is a part of capitalism, despite your claim to the contrary.
We have had systems of feudalism and monarchies that have stayed steady for hundreds of years. In pre history, people lived in communes for thousands of years.
Yes, in the modern world things change much more quickly. Technologies didn’t change for thousands of years. That meant that the number of people a farmer or a plot of land could feed stayed constant for thousands of years. That meant the maximum size of a city was pretty constant. That dictated the kinds of governments that were stable.
It was technology that has made systems unstable, not capitalism.
I mean, that’s such a broad take, any system can change, doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. My point was that the core mechanism of capitalism, which is the private ownership of capital and means of production, will always concentrate wealth and power further and further.
We have had systems of feudalism and monarchies that have stayed steady for hundreds of years. In pre history, people lived in communes for thousands of years.
What is unique about capitalism is that it must move as fast as possible, hence why it can’t stay steady, thereby it changing to late stage is part of the design (as in you can’t have capitalism without it), whereas any other system does not, through its own mechanism, move towards some kind of endgame.
It also doesn’t mean that they’re all the same system. So, if capitalism is one of the many systems that can backslide into authoritarianism doesn’t mean that authoritarianism is a part of capitalism, despite your claim to the contrary.
Yes, in the modern world things change much more quickly. Technologies didn’t change for thousands of years. That meant that the number of people a farmer or a plot of land could feed stayed constant for thousands of years. That meant the maximum size of a city was pretty constant. That dictated the kinds of governments that were stable.
It was technology that has made systems unstable, not capitalism.