• Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    If you ran humanity in thousands of simulations how often would we end up in the same capitalistic situation?

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      the majority would be relatively the same with minor variances on cultural customs and traditions, society conforms to law whether if you realize it or not, this is a chief principle of materialist philosophy, understanding that the things conform to definite laws and that we must and can discover them. Historical materialism is the materialist conception of history with the conclusion that the development of production is the chief driving force in the development of society, quantitative improvements in production lead to qualitative changes in how society is organized.

      With this in mind, Communism is a stage of development where developments in production led to a society of abundance that ended the exploitation of man by man. Communist states, like China, are not in that stage but are organized to pursue that goal, this is why China has a massive focus point on the development of productive industries.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Very frequently, but it is exactly just as likely it would have moved on to Socialism and eventually Communism, or retained feudalism, it all depends on when in development.

    • Grapho@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Far less often than we end up with communalist hunter gatherers and early agrarian communes and evidently for a much shorter time. Does that mean feudalism can never work? Capitalism is never at any point of productive development possible?

      If you’ve never studied an economics text (a real, materialist one, not fucking graphs with conveniently simple and clean cut rules that never seem to apply and zero statistics) then try not to speak so authoritatively on economics.

      • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Your words make no sense to me. If you want to convey ideas use the common tongue. It feels like you have some neat ideas though.

        Edit: Can anyone please decipher what this guy said?

        • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          people share goods and culture naturally. the prevailing historical models are cooperative. anticooperative, competitive societies are rare.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      So many it would be hard to count, at least 4 or 5. But numbers don’t really go much higher than that. Any caveman could tell you that.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      What an interesting question. I have no idea what the answer is, but the question is bloody great.