A common criticism that I see is that capitalism is hyper adaptable to most circumstances and that it can't even really be fully defeated at all, especially from those who shill for it. However, liberalism and it's various forms of it has only been around for like 500 years. The previous order of despotism, empire and feudalism were around for much longer. While it's ability to subsumed criticism of itself into the system is potent, I am not exactly sure if capitalism is all that durable? Is this a weird thing to think?
Capitalisn decays into fascism all the time
>>2810460>implying fascism isn't capitalistLOL
Liberalism is not 500 years old lmfao. Locke was an inspiration for liberal thinkers but he was not a liberal himself.
Anyways yes I agree, imagine telling some peasant in the 11th century that he should be grateful that at least his system isn't so stable as capitalism is!
When people talk about the "adaptability" of capitalism they're mostly talking about the postwar compromise and social democracy. However I don't think this is evidence of capitalist adaptability so much as it was simply the development of standard tools to manage its class contradictions. Its important to remember that under previous modes of production there existed all sorts of ways in which the ruling classes managed class antagonisms through controlled concessions. Consider medieval feudalism. The landowning nobility was of course the dominant class, but they employed a myriad of means to dissipate peasant and burgher class anger such as feast days, debt jubilees, reciprocal feudal obligations, noblesse oblige, bans on usury (and pogroms against the only people allowed to practice it), guilds, etc. I think that the actual structural cause of 20th century revolutions was the fact that capitalist society still had not developed a superstructure capable of efficiently managing those contradictions. It finally found that secret sauce with social democracy, but this still could not overcome the problem of falling profit rates, hence the eventual dismantling of this compromise. In other words, it's not that capitalism is super adaptable, but it didn't really develop its basic toolkit for managing class struggle until the mid 20th century in the imperial core, and even later in the colonized world. This is why revolutions tended to happen in countries where these tools were the least developed, why revolutionary upheaval swept Europe from the late 19th to the mid 20th century, why it swept the third world in the latter half of the 20th century, and why its mostly dormant today no matter where you go.
>>2810460Capitalism is a mode of production, fascism is a mode of governance retard
>>2810512No, they're definitely different things. Capitalism is the mode of production, whereas fascism is a particular model of governance and set of policies that exists preserve capitalism in times of crisis. Capitalism generally results in similar outcomes no matter what flavor of it you pick, so I can see the confusion.
>>2810581You do struggle with English grammar?
Saying X decays into Y means that X and Y are two different states of being, and that the object has shed its former properties of being X in favor of the properties of Y.
So in particle science, saying that Particle A decayed into Particle B, means that the particle no longer has Particle A's properties.
Then, in the phrase "fascism isn't capitalist", "capitalist" is not a noun, which would be "capitalism". Rather, its an adjective. Fascism is described as being "capitalist".
>>2810588No, but I've had a very long day.
>>2810543OP was using terms like "despotism" and "liberalism". I was more so refering to how liberal "democracies" decay into fascism because of the capitalist mode of production.
>>2810614I was trying to convey the incestuous god-king variations of totalitarianism. I know that fascism is kind of like it but I think it has a different sort of appeal? IDK, people do worship Trump after all
>>2810614OP was probably making a naive comparison, but despotism did usually lead towards idiosyncratic economic relations, that i would call palatial in a broad sense. Even in the presence of a state and bureaucracy, it often caused the personal property of the despot to be at least of equal importance in financing warfare and public investment, which can still be seen in later pre-modern autocracies like the Byzantine Empire. Roman imperium and similar forms of overlordship were also deeply economical and may be seen as precursors to later feudalist modes of distribution.