I’m not pretending those are the only options - I’m saying that in a nominally anti-capitalist country, they wrought massive ecological destruction.

In this analogy, you look at woodworking problems differently and might take on new projects but you still generally pick the same type of problem to work on with your newfound tool and retain the same system of values towards woodworking.

With economic systems, almost every action and thought-pattern you take in your daily life are reoriented according to the pressures you are subjected to. Even things that seem completely natural like the concept of a "hobby" or "free time" are massively different to previous eras and patterns of thought.

I was more thinking of the mutualist's idea of land ownership, I don't think it would be any more violent than the current system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#Us...

Basically you can only "own" land if you personally actually use it, not just rent it (or do nothing with it).

There were some alternatives presented but not accepted. In the history of warfare, terrain set boundaries because the defenders had substantial advantage over attackers. I own this side of the river, you own that one. But from an ecological policy standpoint, it’s a disaster. Neither of us own the river, but if I dump shit into it and you have a port at the mouth, then my problems become your problems.

The alternative proposal was to divide government along watershed boundaries. Spain and France are still divided by the Pyrenees, because ridge lines are the same boundaries on both maps. But the Rhine and the Rhone say that France is divided from Germany, Italy, and Benelux all wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File...

The river would instead become the middle of a territory, not the edges. My hamlet “owns” the valley it sits in. The county owns the tributary that flows past my hamlet and into another tributary. The state owns the tributary all the way to the Rhone, our nation or a union owns the entire Rhone, and a regional group oversees the Mediterranean, while the UN oversees the oceans in general, when regions don’t agree with themselves or among each other.

Anyone who muddies our water is in a direct chain of accountability to everyone down stream.

Logistically this is a nightmare. We’ve wiped out any cultures who might have worked this way, and those that remain won’t move political boundaries except under extreme duress, except to expand them (see point 1). But it does have a very Conway’s Law feel to it.

Private property entirely depends on violence -- that's not hyperbole, there's ultimately no other compelling force to enforce societal norms and rules (see: police).

It's only our familiarity and compliance with the system that prevents us from encountering that violence.

That is very much a false dichotomy - and obviously so, because it simply means you have no idea of what Capitalism can cost you, and even less idea of what it has cost you already.

For example your axe and gun won't help you when your health insurance company decides that your pre-existing condition is too expensive to insure and your medical costs are now 100% your own responsibility - which is something that causes the bankruptcy of around 500,000 Americans every year.

Or when there's a major financial crash and a bank decides that it needs to steal your home from under you, whether or not you're underwater on your mortgage.

These are not hypotheticals. These are all things that have happened, are happening, and are likely to continue happening.

GDP is not the issue, but a political and economic system which increases personal selfishness at the expense of others is. You can argue that collectivist solutions have the same problem, and to an extent you'll be right. But it's a long way from there to pretending that this is the best of all possible worlds, because there are economies which prove that isn't true.

I believe you are confusing markets with capitalism.