[sniffers]

We have had capitalism since the late 1700s, or early 1800s. But I think you and I would agree it's not been a uniform experience across that time. Capitalism evolves and adopts new ideas, and experiences different opposition in different places. Since the early 70s in the US, there's been a very different regulatory and cultural environment for capitalism in the US.

[1718627440]

Yes, but this only proves my point, that the problem is indeed not capitalism, but regulatory and cultural environment.

[FloorEgg]

Nature uses the same mechanisms that make up capitalism. In other words, capitalism is the most natural system for distributing resources. Note I'm not saying best, or optimal, because best and optimal depend on some subjective value system (that distinguishes good from bad). My point is just that capitalism closely mimics patterns in nature.

Some of the communists seem to think that capitalism is unnatural, probably because it produces novel outcomes in human civilization, or maybe because it seems new to humanity (I'd argue humans have been using capitalist systems a lot longer than 300 years)

[sniffers]

You can argue that, but you'd be wrong. Don't confuse mercantilism and trade with capitalism. They are outwardly similar, but very different internally.

The fundamental feature of capitalism is the inversion of commodity -> money -> commodity relationship into money -> commodity -> money.

[FloorEgg]

I don't think that's the distinction that matters, more-so the relative development of financial systems and degree of state intervention. Ultimately it boils down to whether you're defining capitalism as a spectrum from proto to modern or as a system with properties surpassing thresholds reached in modern time (post-mercantalism).

My point was more so that the underlying mechanisms of capitalism, when abstracted and measured on scales, show up in many places in nature and throughout human history.

So it's useful to debate how we can improve our capitalist system, but to do away with it all together is naive and unnatural and unlikely to lead to better outcomes, as it's doing away with distributed competition and coordination algorithms necessary for evolutionary advancement and increasing complexity.

We can pick this apart in detail and squabble over taxonomy/semantics but I would just find it interesting and enriching, and unlikely to be invalidating.