• untorquer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    It’s in our genetics to engage in a perpetual exponential quarterly growth and make our decisions based on the benefit it brings to our investors. Any caveman could tell you that smh…

    E: my god it’s a hyperbolically absurd take in memes and even with the caveman comment I still need to /s apparently…

    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, cavemen were very egalitarian. This is because back then, you couldn’t hoard much of anything - food spoils quickly, sex requires your partner to like you, and personal possessions were things like tools or the odd bit of clothing. It was when wealth could be preserved, such as livestock, stored grain, jewelry, and eventually coinage, that wealth became an hereditary thing.

      This is why a future economic system has to be designed to prevent the excessive hoarding of wealth. Not too little, nor too much. Humans weren’t evolved to be free of consequence, especially from each other.

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

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

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        24 hours ago

        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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            14 hours ago

            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.

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        the majority would be relatively the same with minor variances on cultural customs and traditions, society conforms to law whether if you realize it or not, this is a chief principle of materialist philosophy, understanding that the things conform to definite laws and that we must and can discover them. Historical materialism is the materialist conception of history with the conclusion that the development of production is the chief driving force in the development of society, quantitative improvements in production lead to qualitative changes in how society is organized.

        With this in mind, Communism is a stage of development where developments in production led to a society of abundance that ended the exploitation of man by man. Communist states, like China, are not in that stage but are organized to pursue that goal, this is why China has a massive focus point on the development of productive industries.

      • Grapho@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        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.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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?

          • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

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

              • Grapho@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                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.

                • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 hours ago

                  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.

                  • Grapho@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 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.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 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.

      • untorquer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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.

    • Spaniard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, but greed and envy is. That’s why humans have written so much in the last thousand years about greed and envy.