Yeah, the classical mode of production was worse than what we have today. Slavery was worse than feudalism. Feudalism was worse than capitalism. Objectively speaking, for almost all of humanity, capitalism has brought about massive improvements in many aspects of life compared to previous modes of production[1].
The point isn’t that capitalism is uniquely bad. When it’s not crashing and burning, capitalism is very good at creating wealth. The problem is that liberals today often assume that because capitalism is better than the systems that came before it, it means it is the best possible system, and will never be replaced. We know, due to the contradictions at the foundation of capitalism, that it inevitably will destroy itself.
Mind you, this does depend on when you start counting for much of the colonized world; I’m not counting the period of primitive accumulation under colonialism as capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism couldn’t have come to, say, Latin America, without the Spanish and Portuguese colonial period having accumulated capital in the hands of the future bourgeoisie. A similar point also applies to Asia and Africa ↩︎
It’s sort of a niche history meme that the Inca could have made a kind of socialist state if they had more time. The idea goes back to a book from the 1930s
If each new mode of production is measurably better than the last (otherwise, why even bother making the negative comparison from capitalism to Rome as you did?), why are you acting like it’s meaningless for humanity to surpass capitalism? Do you really think it’s all the same or is it different?
Your nihilistic disregard for the improvements that could be offered by surpassing capitalism, and your detached attitude, seem to suggest that you don’t think very highly of the OOP for criticizing capitalism.
why are people pointing out the material reality of capitalism destroying the planet, don’t they know that is just the nature of things? Only idiots use memes to blame systems of oppression for the suffering of billions.
Yeah, the classical mode of production was worse than what we have today. Slavery was worse than feudalism. Feudalism was worse than capitalism. Objectively speaking, for almost all of humanity, capitalism has brought about massive improvements in many aspects of life compared to previous modes of production[1].
The point isn’t that capitalism is uniquely bad. When it’s not crashing and burning, capitalism is very good at creating wealth. The problem is that liberals today often assume that because capitalism is better than the systems that came before it, it means it is the best possible system, and will never be replaced. We know, due to the contradictions at the foundation of capitalism, that it inevitably will destroy itself.
Mind you, this does depend on when you start counting for much of the colonized world; I’m not counting the period of primitive accumulation under colonialism as capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism couldn’t have come to, say, Latin America, without the Spanish and Portuguese colonial period having accumulated capital in the hands of the future bourgeoisie. A similar point also applies to Asia and Africa ↩︎
Oh come on we all KNOW that the Inca would have created industrial socialism by like 1750 if it wasn’t for the damn Spanish
I mean, the Incan mita system was kind of a centralized public works socialism before the Spanish arrived. Maybe that’s what you were getting at
It’s sort of a niche history meme that the Inca could have made a kind of socialist state if they had more time. The idea goes back to a book from the 1930s
My Civ VI games have those foos landing on Mars in the 19th century.
deleted by creator
Who are you, Schopenhauer?
If each new mode of production is measurably better than the last (otherwise, why even bother making the negative comparison from capitalism to Rome as you did?), why are you acting like it’s meaningless for humanity to surpass capitalism? Do you really think it’s all the same or is it different?
.
Your nihilistic disregard for the improvements that could be offered by surpassing capitalism, and your detached attitude, seem to suggest that you don’t think very highly of the OOP for criticizing capitalism.
.
What specifically is wrong with how the idea was expressed?
i hope you’re thrown head first into a pit