• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s Capitalism. Capitalism is humans as cancer. It’s why we joke about late stage Capitalism.

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re not wrong.

      I see capitalism more as a tool that arose due to the rise of the dominator culture in our species. A species without dominator instincts would not invent capitalism.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        Capitalism arose as a natural conclusion to the contradictions of feudalism, not out of some vague sense of Human Nature.

        • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ok, but why did feudalism come about, after 200,000+ years? Capitalism is just a current incarnation of an exploitative system brought to us by dominator culture. Before Capitalism it was Feudalism. If you back far enough, you get to stable groups that operated for millennia apparently without the need for domination being the primary driver of society.

          Using game theory, if the players start out cooperating, this can go on indefinitely, but once someone cheats the game becomes exploitative. Sounds a lot like what happened in our species.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            The history of humanity is the history of class dynamics. Feudalism came about as a result of agricultural development and the ability to store products, rather than needing to use them before they expire.

            • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I know that’s the common story, not sure I believe it.

              1. I don’t know that it makes sense to talk about class dynamics at a global/species level until the 19th or 20th century when culture and ideas could spread. Until then any class dynamics were probably intra-group.

              2. Evidence shows that the change from pre-agricultural to agricultural societies was not linear or quick, it took thousands of years and happened in fits and starts in different areas before really catching on everywhere. It doesn’t make a lot of sense that we invented agriculture and suddenly culture changed to protect the crops.

              3. Feudalism did not occur everywhere, it was mostly a European thing

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago
                1. Why not? After Primitive Communist tribal societies, class has existed in every major society. It doesn’t need to be global.

                2. Nobody said it was linear or quick, just that class conflict is what drove change.

                3. Sure. Different forms of class society with different contradictions have existed in other places.

                • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, don’t necessarily agree either though.

                  I don’t think class conflict (that drove feudalism etc) arose just from there being grains around that “needed protection”. Without the dominator instinct, grain storage just means insurance, food security (security against bad weather, not finding the herd to hunt, or outside groups raiding).

                  I think class conflict was due to individuals who both desired power over others and understood that grain provided a means of attaining power because it provided a hoardable resource that allowed paying others to back them up. “You want to eat good? Then protect me and my hoard” That then sets up a situation where the grain holders become the upper class, those they pay for protection become class traiters, and everyone else ends up exploited.

                  I posit that humans as a species are a generally good cooperative species but due to natural variation, some individual’s brains are wired to think in a more exploitative way. But this exploitative person would be viewed negatively by their community and without a state to protect them, would be vulnerable to the direct consequences of their actions; and so this exploitative strategy was kept in check and unable to grow.

                  The ability to hoard grain allowed those with the dominator instinct to gain the upper hand against their community and take power. Feudalism evolved from that.

                  The rare dominator instinct + hoardable resources evolved into large scale exploitative economies of various types where the dominator instinct then became common and is now in most of us.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Is this “dominator instinct” backed up by science, or vibes? Is it not more likely that environments shape humans, who then shape their environment, which in turn reshapes humans who reshape their environment?