this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1455 points (93.5% liked)

Memes

48622 readers
2178 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

If you ran humanity in thousands of simulations how often would we end up in the same capitalistic situation?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Very frequently, but it is exactly just as likely it would have moved on to Socialism and eventually Communism, or retained feudalism, it all depends on when in development.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Fantastic question! The answer is no, not necessarily. The PRC is Socialist, and never had a true "Capitalist" phase. It currently has a Socialist Market Economy, but never really had a stage dominated entirely by Capitalism.

There are also reversions. Russia reverted to Capitalism, and Germany almost became Communist, but was stopped by the Nazi Party coming to power.

However, all of that being said, history does generally progress alongside technological development, and the Mode of Production follows suit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Well, let's hope the great filter isn't something we encounter before we see some cool shit.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Far less often than we end up with communalist hunter gatherers and early agrarian communes and evidently for a much shorter time. Does that mean feudalism can never work? Capitalism is never at any point of productive development possible?

Edit: deleted a section that assumed you were the same guy who said communism was against human nature. Apologies.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Your words make no sense to me. If you want to convey ideas use the common tongue. It feels like you have some neat ideas though.

Edit: Can anyone please decipher what this guy said?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

people share goods and culture naturally. the prevailing historical models are cooperative. anticooperative, competitive societies are rare.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks man. So this guy is an expert on economies but not on psychologies. Is that fair?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

If you wanna talk psychology, the ultracompetitive demands of modern capitalism have to be drilled into each of us from birth, and most of us resist it all the same. Mark Fisher elaborates on this in Capitalist Realism, this learned behavior is in large part responsible for the mental health crisis in the world.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

You're assuming way too much about my motives. I haven't even stated a conclusion. But from what I gather, you think our behavior is (almost?) fully formed from external forces. That's a valid take, but, I believe to be highly debatable, which I have no answer or conclusion for.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

You're right, I got confused and assumed you were the guy arguing that it was against human nature. I apologize for the mistake and have edited my comment.

Behavior is learned, but as far as anyone can tell, if there's such a thing as "human nature" we seem to be wired very much in favor of empathy and cooperation with other humans, Matthew Lieberman has a book on the subject which I admittedly haven't read yet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

So many it would be hard to count, at least 4 or 5. But numbers don't really go much higher than that. Any caveman could tell you that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

this rather shows the untestability of the hypothesis. this is no test at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago

It's an unanswerable question. Just something to think about. My intention was to ponder how much external forces dictate our society rather than the internal expressive ones.