It is human nature to ignore people who make doomsday predictions based on nothing.
PS: Even if the system does collapse, it doesn't follow that billions of people will die.
Good thing that I didn't make "predictions" and another good thing that I alluded to structural weaknesses which include "infinite growth" as one of the instigators of the issue. Growth is finite, failing to recognize that growth is finite, or saying that "finite doesn't exist", is wishful thinking. And in my opinion, that's what every human system has been designed to do in the modern era, conduct a fishing expedition of "wishful thinking".
In the long term, Capitalism is unsustainable because it creates an artificial demand for consumption which cannot be maintained indefinitely. There is a time frame for which things can be consumed and have to be naturally replenished by the Earth. Ignoring that the Earth is limited in its capacity to replenish certain goods leads to drastic over consumption and eventually the bubble which was formed in the system collapses. The same analogy can be applied across all of capitalism. It is a massive bubble of artificial demand for goods and services which in the long term cannot be sustained given the ferocity of modern human consumption.
Not only is this true, but history backs me up on this assertion. Nature will naturally "assists" societies to reduce their consumption and their ability to continually drain her of her resources. We call these periods in time, "dark ages", and they are some of the longest and most dreadful periods in human history.
Now on to destroying communism, Communism simply doesn't work because the ideal state it tries to achieve contradicts the needs of most societies. Most societies are extremely centralized and well ordered. Communism is ideally a rankless-orderless society. This is not at all impossible to achieve, but it forces individuals to revert back to a state prior to civilization. In other words, humans have to revert back to an existence before the creation of cities. It is in this simple agrarian existence that communism is possible. However, most people aren't willing to do this, nor is it practical. The major problem stems from the needs of modern civilization.
Modern societies must maintain roads, armies, factories, rules, laws, etc. This all requires "order" which is something that is thrown into the face of communism. Communism requires the opposite to actually work, "freedom". When systems become so organized, so planned, and so mechanical that they can no longer deviate from a plan, they begin to stagnate. And one of the largest problems with communism is the long term stagnation and lack of ideas caused by the imposition of order and the lack of freedom. Communism is doomed to collapse from stagnation and its inability to maintain all of its financial and social responsibilities. Furthermore, this is more likely to occur than an over consumption of resources which plagues capitalism in the long run.
Both systems have flaws which make them unattractive. Capitalism in the short term is a very safe option unlike communism. However, capitalism has the potential to put a society out of commission for hundreds if not thousands of years sometimes. There are 4 issues here: 1.) How do we grow and maintain progress as a society, 2.) While maintaining the stability and safety of our society, 3.) while also maintaining the health and fertility of the Earth around us, 4.) How do we prepare for the worst when nature decides to change her mind.
While capitalism certainly has tried to address all of these issues, it will never effectively address these issues due to its only incentive being individual wealth. Communism has attempted to address the second issue and has failed. Too much stability and safety leads to stagnation. And traditional economics addresses the third and fourth issue at hand. What resources can we actually use effectively without consuming them all at once, how can we survive if nature takes a turn? Traditional economics addresses these issues but is prone to permanent stagnation as a result.
We as humans need four things in our new economic system to not only thrive, but survive as a species.
1.) A system that promotes human ingenuity and progress
2.) Maintains the safety and stability of the populace
3.) Maintains the health and fertility of our world
4.) Plans for disaster and doesn’t base its existence off periods of thriving (expects nature to fail)
If a new socio-economic system took root which recognized all four of these objectives as pertinent, it could potentially avert the disaster humans have coming their way. If not, I’m sure that billions will die. If our financial system were to collapse billions will die from the lack food, clean water, and medical care. That is reason enough for billions of people to die, no Armageddon mythical type wars needed.
