• LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          What’s the problem with my example? Roman Empire qualifies for “recorded history”.

          If you weren’t a shit lib jabroni intent on knee jerk defending a system that does literally nothing for you unless you own capital, so smug and self assured and addicted to the smell of your own farts, you’d realize the point of the “recorded history” statement isn’t “the systems used before were better”

          the point of the statement is to illustrate how fleeting and ephemeral the supposed “only system that works” is. It has literally only existed for ~300 years, but stupid fuckers like you act like capitalist wage labor and property relations are just common sense “human nature”

          Anyway, hope you’re thrown into a pit you dumb fucker

    • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.


      1. 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 ↩︎

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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?

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      OP doesn’t say that an older system was better - especially not some super-specific one. Just that it’s NOT the only possible system and likely not the best there can be.

      So I’m not sure who exactly you’re arguing with.

    • fulm@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I fail to see what any of this has to do with an economic system. These are scientific or legal topics.

      And indeed, slavery is present under unchecked capitalism as well.

    • Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      “…including being crucified, eaten by lions in a public show, and being sewn alive inside a bag with various animals and thrown in the river to drown.”

      We’ve barely evolved at all. I just heard the President of the US relishing the idea of escapees from his concentration camp being eaten by alligators.