[DoubleDerper]

> and always used some form of debt to manage the social fabric and facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

This is the capitalistic narrative since the agricultural revolution, thousands of years ago, but it's not true of most of human history.

During pre-agriculture we coexisted with many species, all living off the fat of the land, resources were plentiful for hundreds of thousands of years.

A delightful counterpoint and quick read is the book "Ishmael."

https://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Novel-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375...

[JumpCrisscross]

> resources were plentiful for hundreds of thousands of years

While they were plentiful. We chose agriculture because it means your entire tribe not dying of starvation because of minor variations in the local environment.

[DoubleDerper]

... and this tribalism led to the violent assembly of contiguous land and hoarding of resources to the alienation of everything/everyone outside the tribe. This pattern evolved into our modern system.

If local environments began to change, then your nomadic tribe moved along rather sitting around waiting to die. Birds fly south for the winter.

[JumpCrisscross]

> then your nomadic tribe moved along rather sitting around waiting to die

Which sucks if you’re injured when the migration must occur. Or if you migrate incorrectly. The evidence we have is for periods of plenty followed by harrowing narrowing of the population. These events are few in between and globally notable in the agricultural era (Bronze Age collapse, fall of Rome, et cetera).

[btbuildem]

Are you referring to the Paleolithic? These "societies" (nomadic bands, really) generally operated on principles of reciprocity and gift economies.

Debt in that context was more of a social obligation - but served a similar purpose as what we understand debt to be today: to compel someone to do something. It engendered bonds of trust and interdependence, helping ensure the survival of the group. Food sharing was often obligatory: today's hunter who shares his catch with you becomes tomorrow's recipient when you make the kill.

You're right to note that the agricultural revolution was special -- in that the accumulation of surplus allowed people to store it, and lend it out. This lead to wealth being quantified and introduced the concept of interest.

"Capitalism" - as characterized by the drive to continuously reinvest in order to generate more wealth - doesn't come into play for another ten thousand years. The different prerequisites (wage labour, financial systems, property relations) arrive at different times - but we could say, ballpark, around the 16th century, with the advent of the chartered companies (eg, East India)?