von Verfall erzittern
Well I'm not disagreeing with that at all but that's nothing to do with the origins of capitalism is it? It's what's happening now. I'm asking as I'm sure you know about how you are so certain that it was designed to be like this rather than that it was corrupted or that it was an inevitable but misunderstood consequence of idealistic free trade beliefs. Surely not controversial to state that the system we have now is far beyond the control and understanding of any individual or even group of individuals (although of course some have a far greater stake than others).
Admittedly, I'm no expert on the history of the emergence of market-based capitalism from feudalist society. However, just as Curtis' work doesn't deal with the entire period of capitalist organisation of economy but rather with its technologised and globalised contemporary incarnation, I was only making assertions about the intentional implementation of the neoliberal agenda after WWII encompassing the policy-based initiation and facilitation of intimately interrelated processes such as liberalisation, deregulation, financialisation and globalisation. Likewise, I was commenting on the introduction of private bank ownership, dating back more than three hundreds years, and the establishment of the central banking system, some 100 years ago. Those concepts, being inherently exploitative and disenfranchising to the general public, are the very basis of the monetary system of modern capitalism and probably the root cause of much of its instability. In this sense, the neoliberal restructuring of the world economy as well as the century-old banking system, both hallmarks of the contemporary constitution of capitalism, can really be said, as you put it, to have been a "deliberate move on the part of someone", perhaps not to the benefit of the Illuminati but certainly to that of such illustrious names such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs and Bushs.Again you (deliberately?) misunderstand and list effects rather than consequences. Unless you're saying that there was a document revealing how The Illuminati laid down the tenets of capitalism.
Once again do you have any evidence, or even reason to believe that the creation of capitalism (whatever that means) was a deliberate move on the part of anyone?
The phenomena in question, I would argue, are neither deterministic nor accidental in nature but rather the direct outcome of, yes, conspiratorial and largely secret human agency. Now, if this thesis makes me a conspiracy theorist in your eyes, so be it. But let me remind you of what Mark Twain said in this regard: "A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public." As such conspiracies are probably one of the basic features of human existence. I really don't see why of all fields of human activity the politico-ecomic realm should be exempt from this rule; if anything, as the arena of the greatest possible gain I find it quite logical to suspect that it also harbours the greatest possible conspiracy.Not so much immutable any more than the consequences of evolution were certain. I think that both capitalism and evolution are extremely complex systems in which small changes in inputs cause large and unforeseen changes in results. This is not a reason to accept that the way things are, I just think that it's better to attempt to understand something properly if you want to fight against it rather than to appeal to a conspiracy theory - which is basically what you're doing. Conspiracy theories being notorious in that they allow the theorist to avoid real engagement with the actual situation.
Furthermore, equating capitalism and evolution on the basis of refering to them very broadly as "extremly complex system" seems like a gross misjudgement of their respective underlying principles to me. Evolution is a biological process obeying natural laws, while economy is a human affair subject to all-to-human manipulation. You say that conspiracy theorists "are notorious in that they allow the theorist to avoid real engagement with the actual situation." Would you say that academic economists trained precisely at the Ivy-League faculties also producing the CEO's of major corporations and top-level government officials are necessarily any more objective and impartial? With the world economy in total disarray, should one really believe those whose consultation and policy-making has led to the disaster?