You might consider how hunter-gatherers (probably) ate all the mammoths, and other elephant-alikes, and the giant kangaroos. I mean capitalism isn't crucial to making humans immoderate although I suppose it gets them better boats.
The book "not the end of the world" by Hanna Ritchie makes a neat point that humans have never lived in what we would call a sustainable way, but it's possible for this generation to be the first one that does.
How is that possible? At some point there were a small amount of humans and they probably were not able to consume resources faster than nature can replenish them
Nomads also live in those areas because agrarians pushes them out of more productive land. Prior to the development of agriculture, there wasn't such a distinction.
That was sustainable as long as they killed each other at the same rate as they reproduced, so they didn't fill all the available area. Civilized societies and medicine destroyed any chance of sustainability until contraception was invented. Now, only the pension funds propaganda keeps us from reaching a sustainable population again.
The main difference being the scale we can (and we do) bring species to extinction nowadays, even collaterally. Also nowadays we know exactly what we are doing, yet we press the gas pedal even harder to maximize shareholder value. So no, the comparison doesn't hold.
Capitalism explicitly wants to separate power decisions, e.g. "throw that man in jail" from money decisions, e.g. "consumer demand shows we should build more of widget X and less of widget Y".
Things like Communism, Fascism, monarchy want to combine them, so the government/leader has the power and the money decisions.
Capitalism only means unconditional private property rights in the means of production. It doesn't require separation of powers or anything else, it can and has historically worked great with fascism.
"Money decisions" are also absolutely power decisions. The power concentration isn't even mainly in the decisions of the rich, but simply in that they are rich. You need to work building yachts rather than bake bread because the yacht buyers have so fabulously much more money to spare than the bread buyers. And the money they don't spend is even more powerful since it controls society's investments. Our society orbits around wealth, that's what capitalism is in practice.
It has not worked well with fascism. You know that you basically had a gun pointed at your head, if you did not comply with the regime? To be able to keep your stuff, you had to collude with the system. And you had to be not jewish as well.
But they didn't have guns pointed to their heads. Every single time in history, they gleefully collaborated and even helped the fascists come to power in the first place.
And there are many examples of them being happy to join in. I think the best one right now is Alex Karp, Palantir CEO, who is actively rooting for and building the tools of fascism because it's so profitable.
> Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies and on occasion kill them.
> We’re going to partner with the world’s best people and we’re going to dominate. You can be along for the ride or you don’t have to be.
> Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.
> Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.
> The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.
> We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?
> The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service.
This capitalist doesn't have a gun pointed to his, he instead feels a moral obligation to provide the state with a comprehensive surveillance apparatus and ability to kill enemies of the state while also decrying holding public figures accountable.
There are famously capitalist countries that are monarchies (like the UK), so as written that has to be wrong. There isn't really a definition of what "capitalism" means, although we can be fairly confident it involves people owning capital. Arguably it means that the people who own the capital should control the lion's share of political power (which, coincidentally, is how the US works).
The thing that makes communism (and fascism to a lesser extent) anti-capitalist are that it rejects the idea people should be allowed to own and control capital. So there is a clear incompatibility with communism even if the exact nature of capitalism isn't clear.
> Arguably it means that the people who own the capital should control the lion's share of political power
The ideology, such as it is, doesn't have to explicitly say that capital should have political power. It merely says that it's a moral outrage to prevent the rich from spending their money however they choose.
But the ideology is secondary to capital anyway. If we let the rich get rich enough, that's strong incentive for inventing ideological justifications for it; after all to be friends with the powerful gives an easy life, and to be their enemy give a hard one.
> The ideology, such as it is, doesn't have to explicitly say that capital should have political power. It merely says that it's a moral outrage to prevent the rich from spending their money however they choose.
But that's the same thing. Because having so much money to spend is (one type of) political power.
that seems a bit naive. you can think of it like that, but then you'll find actual practicing capitalists (not capitalism, the generalized concept) will always cozy up to centers of coercive power, until they're the ones weilding those coercive powers. you've basically reinvented the medieval distinction between the church and the secular authority. the church would never burn people alive, they just determine if a person is spreading heresy and the secular authority will do what it will.
in reality it's all one system and it exists in reality. the system that exists in theory is just a model to carry around in your head.
Correct. Capitalism is one of many different systems that degraded the environment. By contrast nothing else has really advanced humans.
Arguably capitalism is the first system to see environmental problems and try to solve them.
Arguably? Capitalism will crash and burn before it will solve any env problem. May I remind you that without NASA (not a private entity) and without gov regulations (not industry self-regulation) we wouldn't have an ozone layer today.
Modern capitalism was invented in 2020 with the abolition of bank reserve requirements. The previous incarnation was invented in 2008 with the start of QE Infinity. There were probably a few between that and the one that started in 1971 with the abolition of the gold standard, and so on.
