Yeah yeah, markets are a natural phenomenon arising from human nature itself and nothing can be done to fix the issues they cause, so we shouldn't even try. We get your argument, it's as old as humanity itself, and was used to justify feodalism, slavery, etc.
I have trouble even understanding your original comment.
First, I've yet to meet an "anti-capitalist" who believes its existence is enforced by a secret cabal at the top. They very much understand the material conditions that led to it.
Second, I reject your "function of consent/interoperability at scale beyond the immediate family/tribe unit". Take a look in your history books, societies have been organized in many ways that don't require accumulation of capital in the hands of a minority.
So, if your viewpoint is that capitalism is a natural state of things, I completely disagree, and there are many counter-examples throughout history.
That there are other systems doesn't mean one begets the other. Diversity exists. Thus your counter example point doesn't make the point you're alluding to. It's a straw man.
Likewise "who believes its existence is enforced by a secret cabal at the top" is another strawman.
Your comment make really little sense to me, I'm completely lost.
> The thing 'anti-capitalists' never seem to understand, is that it's not a top down system but bottom up emergent human behaviour.
They don't think that. Seems like a straw-man.
> A function of consent/interoperability at scale beyond the immediate family/tribe unit. Thus hard to see an "end to capitalism". That would be like an end to language. We'd just re-invent it.
Why? Are you claiming that any system would contain capitalism and thus we can never be rid of it? Because they are other systems without accumulation of capital in the hands of the few. Seems like an appeal to nature to me.
Top down is maybe the wrong term, but basically it's presented as one thing to get past, that wasn't opted into. That it's a thing in and off itself. That's my perspective. As I see it, people who don't like capitalism can just not do it - although of course then they will struggle to interoperate with others who are ok with it, but that's there choice.
> Because they are other systems without accumulation of capital in the hands of the few. Seems like an appeal to nature to me.
Can you share how they work, and solve the problem of different appetites for risk to reward/loss, and if they have consent?
As I see it people could opt in to a socialist structure, which seems fine to me as long as they are consentful (ie not trying to spread it forcefully onto others) and the participants are happy with still not having certainty.
But to answer your question, yes - at present it seems to me any system would have capitalism emerging as it's a function of our diversity. Aside from slavery and other non-consensual systems.
