Bret Devereaux

There are, of course, hybrid systems - but the three core systems remain the basis of them; for large societies, that drops to just two. I think you can talk about *our current form* of capitalism as deeply contingent...

...but capitalism *generally* - private ownership, profit motives, market interactions, that's a system that springs up independently in multiple non-connected sophisticated cultures.

I'd say, honestly *most* of what has happened in the study of ancient economies in the past 30 years has been recognizing that private ownership was a bigger slice of a wide range of economies - even into the bronze age - than we used to think.

If capitalism is 'private ownership of capital for profit' then we increasingly have evidence for it - in a limited sense - before the invention of coinage; in a sense, before money!

Given that wide scope, I'd go ahead and suggest that "This is mine and I will use it to maximize my self-benefit" (=private ownership of capital for profit) is, in fact, a nearly universal feature of agrarian societies, with the proviso that it exists in uneasy balance...

...with the alternate system, "this belongs to the state" (which often just meant "this belongs to the king who will use it to maximize *his* self-benefit" since if the history of modern economic systems has shown us anything, it is that state control != community control.)

Taking that context, capitalism - at this bedrock definition 'private property for personal profit' - appears contingent only to a very limited degree. About as contingent, say, as farming, or the development of the state - also things which sprung up several places.

Now, what we might call modern western capitalism - finance, joint-stock companies, the like - is more contingent (although I can't help but note that those same institutions spring up in different forms in more places at more times too, suggesting they are also general)