Yeah, the classical mode of production was worse than what we have today. Slavery was worse than feudalism. Feudalism was worse than capitalism. Objectively speaking, for almost all of humanity, capitalism has brought about massive improvements in many aspects of life compared to previous modes of production^[Mind you, this does depend on when you start counting for much of the colonized world; I'm not counting the period of primitive accumulation under colonialism as capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism couldn't have come to, say, Latin America, without the Spanish and Portuguese colonial period having accumulated capital in the hands of the future bourgeoisie. A similar point also applies to Asia and Africa].

The point isn't that capitalism is uniquely bad. When it's not crashing and burning, capitalism is very good at creating wealth. The problem is that liberals today often assume that because capitalism is better than the systems that came before it, it means it is the best possible system, and will never be replaced. We know, due to the contradictions at the foundation of capitalism, that it inevitably will destroy itself.

[–] a_party_german@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

capitalism couldn't have come to, say, Latin America, without the Spanish and Portuguese colonial period

Oh come on we all KNOW that the Inca would have created industrial socialism by like 1750 if it wasn't for the damn Spanish

[–] NeelixBiederman@hexbear.net 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean, the Incan mita system was kind of a centralized public works socialism before the Spanish arrived. Maybe that's what you were getting at

[–] a_party_german@hexbear.net 8 points 4 days ago

Maybe that's what you were getting at

It's sort of a niche history meme that the Inca could have made a kind of socialist state if they had more time. The idea goes back to a book from the 1930s

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 11 points 4 days ago

My Civ VI games have those foos landing on Mars in the 19th century.