Not really no, it can be ended by simply changing the idea of land ownership, for example.
Land ownership in it's modern form didn't happen in a voluntary way, it was forced through violence.
Land ownership in it's modern form didn't happen in a voluntary way, it was forced through violence.
Even the soviets came to that conclusion during their existence, starting with adopting leasing and then near the end full ownership for agriculture and then eventually for homes.
I still remember a friend from college telling me how his father had to retain his property after the fall of the USSR and new land rights were established in one of the now former satellite states, with a gun and an axe.
Not to create a false dichotomy but I'll take a stable slightly coercive economic system over a system that requires me to use violence to keep what is mine.
It's only our familiarity and compliance with the system that prevents us from encountering that violence.
“Business is war.”
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 evolving our current system and maintaining certain elements is better than getting rid of it all together. I see reactions like yours as throwing the baby out with the bathwater when there are more level headed approaches we can take like limiting lobbying to course correct.
Edit: This is my US centric view, I realized after the fact that we may not be in the same place since this is a global forum
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).
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.
That's a very narrow view of capitalism.