[this_user]

You make it sound like there is a difference between capitalism and human nature, but there really isn't. Capitalism is merely an institutionalised expression of the latter, hence its longevity.

Humans by their very nature possess the instinct to outcompete their rivals as a result of millions of years of evolution. Anyone who was not like that, was removed from the gene pool by those who were either by taking their resources or by outright murdering them.

[_oghd]

longevity? uh... no. capitalism is very young in human society.

for clarity, feudalism lasted twice as long as capitalism has currently existed.

and while competition has dominated the scientific and cultural narrative for a while, that's not the exclusive interpretation, or even necessarily the best or correct one.

[kneebonian]

I have to ask what do you mean by capitalism then?

Was the blacksmith selling the products of his labor to people in the community not capitalism?

What exactly do you mean by capitalism?

[BlueTemplar]

In the sense that most people were manorial serfs and didn't use money and also the merchant class was despised by the ruling landowner/warrior class before they were overthrown by the merchants around 1800.

Now, sure, that manorial land was technically the means of production, and those in charge of these manors technically owned it (maybe much more like we are used to in civilizational phases, like with the Roman empire ?), but isn't this really stretching the intuitions we have around "capitalism" ?

[_oghd]

personally, i adopt the marxist analysis of capitalism being a particular mode of production where private productive property is owned and controlled by the owners/shareholders and labor is exchanged for wages.

if we are going to make a distinction between feudalism and capitalism, surely we can similarly make a distinction between capitalism and X, instead of simply defining capitalism uselessly as "free markets" or "human nature." it's inclusive of the institutions which uphold these relations.