Capitalism definition
The mind terrorism Capitalism as near to Total Paradigm Shift

First let me give my simple definition of capitalism: Capitalism is egoism, combined with a respectless view on fellow beings. In abstract logic (like promoted by Kant) one even might define 1 + 1 = 3. Then to prevent 2 general mistakes made by 'scientists': 1. I AM a scientist, only both in social science AND math. I 'saw' the paradox in 'rational' logic. 2. For many scientists a view bigger than being only 'rational' is something beyond their dual view on life ('spirituality' + intuition), seeing my common sense view as 'intuition' and thus inferior to 'rational spirituality' (representing THE LAW of Nature). Rationalism denies emotions.

Asking for an economic definition of capitalism is like inviting a liar to get in the mood for lying.
Capitalist = Economic. Even western people who disgust capitalism largely behave capitalist

Slightly changed a famous remark of the existentialist Sartre characterises the following article:
Man is not the sum of what he sees, but the totality of what he does not yet see, of what he might see. 

The relativism in this remark is taken by me as trigger to show that capitalism is a perfect example of what was meant Kuhn as inventor of the words paradigm shift, because this Western Word view totally changed the also Western (Roman Catholic Christian) intelligence.
The idea 'Capitalism' ventilated by the European Karl Marx prefers individualism above collectivism (using the dubious law of the fittest). Though the French thinker Louis Althusser (teacher of Michel Foucault) claimed that Marx was fundamentally misunderstood. Althusser was sure Karl Marx had constructed a revolutionary view of social change (a 'paradigm shift' or 'epistemological break'). Althusser believed that Marx's rejected the rational dualism subject-object, or body-spirit. That makes Marx's work ununderstandable for 'rational' scientists. Anyway the writings of Karl Marx have essentially different interpretations depending on the locally dominant paradigm (say Buddhism, Christianity or Islam). And all over the world it became a myth. Mind that the concept 'rationalism' originated in pre industrial France, and that the concept 'capitalism' comes from industrial England (the temporary home of the Austrian Marx).

WHAT IF you're a native rural Chinese who meets this Western born fantasy, totally indoctrinated by 'rational' Maoism and still grounded in common sense Buddhism.

The fact that Industrialism dominated and shaped present Europe, does in no way mean that this product of Roman Catholic ethics should be used worldwide.
In most armies the common sense idea 'respect' is still valued, only not made into a real body-mind DECISIONS (intuition) like: "STOP, the killing must be over!"
In power thinking Western armies are ABUSED by politicians for aiming at dominance of Capitalism. Politics should make ethics, not promote power thinking.
Catholic Culture (however good meaning) didn't get succesful by peacefully integrating with others, but by dirty colonial wars inspirated by the egoism in industrialism.

Steps

I'll use the following steps:

1. Getting started
2. Continuous growth and Jumps
3. Evolutionary Forces need cultural earthquakes to go from Stationary into Oscillating
4. Half Frankenstein, half Mona Lisa
4. Kuhn and Marcuse both made subcultures rumble
5. Evolution can be seen as an endless sequence of oscillations ending in jumps
6. Captains of Evolution
7. The miscourse Rationalism: Western Truth shrank temporarily
8. You get the Leaders that you deserve
9. Karl Marx steered from plain Rationalism to Economic Rationalism
10. Flash of an Eye
11. Nobel Prize winning arrogant Inner Sea Captain versus modest Ocean Captain

Getting started

---

Karl Popper, born around 1900, stressed continuity in change. Especially he mentioned science.

Thomas Kuhn stressed the periodical discontinuity in change, and forgot to mention (semi) continuity (reality is discrete). Though he defined science as only one of many traditions, in one of his most famous and most controversial statements as a philosopher. So anyway without doubt he realized the (semi) continuous part of science.

Humans can handle well the smooth flow and calm waters of continuous and linear aspects of change. They tend to see science as a conservative religion. Kuhn pointed out that this is because they often have problems with grasping rapids and waterfalls (or discontinuity). 

I just mix both ideas into one total view. 

---

Tiny fashionable steps of Ethiquette and Brutal Original Jumps in Ethics

Sir Karl Popper defined his Critical Rationalism still like a gentleman believing in a religion like a steadily growing scientific tradition (a continuous church with linear growth), but as a 'terrorist' ploughing farmer' Thomas Kuhn furthered Popper's view on science, by introducing the idea of 'Scientific Revolutions' or paradigm shifts that shock by putting everything upside down once in a while (discontinuity).
In fact both types of growth are part of evolution, but in different stages. Without the 'ploughshare of evil' (Nietzsche) Evolution could not continue. That's why Thomas Kuhn's idea of 'paradigm shifts' has managed to remain standing upright against waves of alternative ideas. That skill, however subtile and complex, can not replace the total of ethics is show in the 'Popper Kuhn 'Debate

And don't forget this is only 'western' philosophy, there are more worlds of thought. 

In this article I don't add anything new, but only join these two very valuable ideas. In short: I pose a surprising new view on the importance of the rise of capitalism. To do so I only need to extend and refresh a forgotten major philosophical idea dating from the mid-20th century. I revive the words paradigm shift. Opening a debate that was in my opinion closed far too early. 

I invite anybody to join the debate. 

Evolutionary Forces need cultural earthquakes to go from Stationary into Oscillating

In my words I represent nature as a twisting river, using the comprehensible picture of flowing water. Sometimes slow, but always powerfull. It can shape canyons through mountains. So change happens continuously, even in muddy motionless pools, where, as we all know, it's mostly linear. It also appears in the rapids of turbulent white waters (clearly non-linear), and sometimes in big splashing waterfalls (discontinuous change). 

Incidental change often looks like the same twisting river fighting a dry desert (intellectually dry period). Ways of change may look twisted to us ordinary people, but its goal is . . . progress and that object is always reached. This may be achieved through temporary retreat, and may take ages, but time doesn't matter in the eyes of nature. 
Each day, we all meet and observe linear change around us, we observe it by seeing, hearing or smelling - or whatever. Expressed in our scientific language: integrate the change function.
We're only able to 'see' the totality of change afterwards, so including the discontinuities.

Because we just follow the murderous rapids of this mighty river and because we're fighting to stay alife Kuhn was convinced that we need terribly strong shocks or teasing temptations to make us change the course. In fact someone needs to wrestle ashore, and find a position to see new views. Then he/she must drag out the drenched others and make them peep at the awsome view. They cunningly resist because they just learned how to survive the mighty rapids. He should convince them that this river speeds towards Hell to make them fall awake. After a colorful view of sharpshooting efficient Apache helicopters firing at anybody who tries to escape from Tax Hell, they should be easily convinced.
In the beginning of the 21st century this is done by the reality redesigner Zarah2nd (as 'prophet')

Half Frankenstein, half Mona Lisa

Thomas Kuhn expected such shocks to come from science. But the myth of Popper's falsification principle perfectly showed especially that it's easy to create a science like a religion (already Jesus heavily fought with the 'sleeping' scientist called 'Pharisees').
Anyway who can gather a charge can also supply a shock. But it takes years of 'stubbornly' supplying shocks to a 'tranquillized' establisment to create a total paradigm shift (reality redesign). The leading circles of society often are totally uninterested in essential change, and only extremely irritated by consistent shaking their powerbase with shocks. But a steadily growing recession makes them wonder. Not a high IQ does the job, but persistently drawing attentention with common sense views and showing high social intelligence. Someone who is not satisfied with dancing with the cheerleaders, but wants to score.
Thus in the end intelligence as well, but qualities other than talent in math. A human who causes fright like a shark, is venomous like a snake and inviting like a dolphin. Half Frankenstein, half Mona Lisa.

My guess is that Kuhn felt that he was too nice a guy, and decided to let someone else try to realize a revolution. He was right, because to be a prophet takes being a mighty wizard and a fearsome hunter, having the irresistable will to be a leader, and being being accepted. Thomas Kuhn must have realized that even Nietzsche failed, though an outspoken wizard and a frightening hunter with strong will to lead. But as obviously but there were serious questions concerning his leadership qualities. In the rational Christian culture he was considered to be arrogant towards the Christian Religion, and that proved to be a major obstacle for being followed as trustworthy guide of the Christian Tribe.

Kuhn had more ammunition but mid 20th century in his time Christian society was still not yet 'ripe'. It still could sufficiently tranquillize Western public opinion and for instance get away with a Vietnam War. Patience was needed waiting for a fertile young generation that would weaken the dominant forces until a real intellectual shark in one terrible mind scattering 'blow' could finish the job... . But such a 'shark' will meet resistance triggered by agressive moods, from near to total censorship to murder attempts.
Wasted energy, sharks are fearless and always find ways to attack...Military like stubborn resistance only means unnecessary fountains of blood.

Kuhn and Marcuse both made subcultures rumble

1. Famous quotes from Kuhn: 

The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly.

Or said by Kuhn in another way: Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition

2.'Flower Power' may be off the wall, but some thoughts of its house-philosopher Herbert Marcuse, remain valid. Marcuse was a special case. This philosopher splendidly analysed many parts of Capitalism. However, he tended to point too much at the bad sides of Capitalism, instead of regarding it as only a twist of nature (a big and still powerful river that would beaten by the self created deserts). Even most criminals hate being bad, so this resulted in conflict. Furthermore the rational side of Capitalism still got stronger, and the movement 'Flower Power' pushed the balance far towards feeling. It only shows that World War II made Herbert Marcuse realize Nazism was an absolute doctrine while love is relative. Such notions fit all doctrines and that's why love or respect is a way to leave absolute rationality without a war and a lot of victims.

At least the name 'One Dimensional Man' that Marcuse invented was brilliant. It pointed to humanity becoming linear (another word for 'rigid'). Marcuse drew to young people because he must have preferred creativity or exciting unpredictability above what had become the dull averageness of common life.

Evolution can be seen as an endles sequence of oscillations ending in jumps

The thoughts so far show:

(1) A small part of change is linear
(2) a much bigger part non-linear and
(3) for the greatest part it's discontinuous (not fully predictable).

Every major change begins like a stone falling in streaming water and causes wrinkles in the form of ever expanding 'circles'. That's still understandable, however the final result may as well be rapids or waterfalls.

It takes beating such rapids and waterfalls of thought to grasp their meaning. And after beating the rapids and managing to go ashore to survive, such an extremely strong but terribly shocked person should convince fellow people still happily speeding down the rapids of this river not only of the extreme one way power of this river of thought, but also that he 'saw' that it heads towards an even more powerful desert.
It's like changing direction of all mind traffic on earth, by patiently drawing attention standing in the middle of the mind traffic highway.
Until now only extremely convincing people like Zoroaster (zoroastrianism), Buddha (buddhism) ,and Jesus (suppressed view) succeeded in doing so.

Nobody will deny the statement that nature is like a twisting river that flows steadily. Though still a lot of scientists act like everything can be made linear. So temporarily quasi stable nature is continuous, while essential change is discontinuous. Because it breaks with tradition. Or said another way: stones thrown by 'prophets,'or mudslips or avalanches disturb the equilibrium of the 'peaceful' flowing water.
Those concerned may not dwell at remote rivers and thus stay blissfully unaware of the consequences of such rolling stones. In the years to follow though, anything can totally alter this situation. Although, of course, they cannot stop the waves they caused before. 

New means of communication can considerably accelerate change. The Iron Curtain was certainly not meant to stop radio waves, but only humans. But radio and television demolished the Wall as an example of the brute power of change. 

No doubt but the oscillations in their subculture triggered by Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Darwin caused many contemporaries a headache. After Galileo, the world was suddenly round, after René Descartes, romantic thinking had been turned into rational. Isaac Newton introduced gravity like a magician, and since Charles Darwin humans were reduced to being just apes.
Out of this small group of 'thought artists', only Descartes is today counted as a philosopher, the others are seen as scientists. Descartes was one of the early French philosophers that most influenced the western world.

More important at that time was that Galileo's thoughts  and those of Darwin, were serious non-Catholic views. They produced oscillations in the Western Christian subculture. They finally succeeded in having them result in a jump (Galileo with help of a swing by Christopher Columbus after his death). Because both were in the Western World accepted as wizards in their field, and therefore as authorities concerning this matter (swingmasters).

Of course after the swings produced by these wise men science continued, but PARTLY in a totally different direction than before (partial discontinuity). The resemblance of these scientific wizards was that they all produced revolutionary thoughts, that later proved to be paradigm shifts or direction changes. They can be seen as Captains of Evolution

Unlike better known paradigm shifts, capitalism produced a slow but real revolution. We tend to think of revolutions as being fast, but most volcano's rumble for hundreds of years before eruption.  Once Capitalism got on its way, feelings were repressed top-down and on the surface remained mainly rational (economic) thinking. That resulted in LAW MAKING big spenders (billionaires) and OBEYING poor suckers (starving people).

In fact one went from the multiple truth feeling plus rationality to mainly only rationality. Feeling already consist of multiple truths, originating from multiple senses. The present longing for feeling shows that this diverse trait wasn't all that bad. Stressing it's strong side Capitalism could be called 'Economic Rationalism' but, as I say,  I prefer 'One Dimensional Thinking'. Nazism and Communism were both almost perfect forms of rationalism. So is  Capitalism, only in a stealthier disguise.

Feeling went into guerrilla mode, hiding inside art, music, children's literature, anarchism and street culture. Feeling tends to get ever weaker but is still needed for balance. 

Debates about nuclear science and DNA research show the obvious imbalance in feelings and rational thought. Practical experience conflicts with rationality, emotion faces and competes with scientific views. People in leading positions tend to get ever more rational, those that are lead still show enough emotion. 

The medieval, rational logic of Descartes fitted perfectly with the European invention named  capitalism. It's painfully clear that removing Cartesian maths would mean the collapse of the building of formal western science. That leaves the choice between adapting the building to earthquakes (a Western Stronghold defended by War on Terrorism) - or exchanging an agressive and rigid rational doctrine for flexibility. The third choice is fighting but that is both arrogant and ignorant. As an old Zen wisdom says: bending yields more result with less energy than trying to stay upright. 
The same Zen philosophy would say: There are as many truths as dimensions, and per dimension there are many possible sciences. That there are more truths than only (a fundamental) one should be crystal clear to anybody. Anyway it still causes a lot of useless discussion.

Capitalism should be seen as a major paradigm shift 

Too strengthen my view that capitalism (combined with communism) almost became a Total Paradigm shift , I repeat that general acceptance of Darwinism took more than 60 years.

Accepting Darwinism as a part of fundamental science even took considerably longer, and yet still, in 1998, I found an article on the Internet by some religious group mocking comparisons between humans and apes. Change may be slow but is anything but rigid.  Capitalism was not rapidly accepted, because it never got popular. That is because it offers nothing a real value to the 'have-nots'.

Questionable views slowed down acceptance of the doctrine capitalism/democracy. And the social situation never got really stable. It seems this ideology will be outrun by a real Total Paradigm shift.

Human influence seemed to speed up change. For cosmic lookers-on, it remains the flash of an eye. 

My reaction to the Weinberg criticism in 1998 of Kuhn's paradigms 

In the eyes of Nobel Prize winner, Steven Weinberg, Kuhn's modesty about science is just scepticism and (in his words) wormwood. Like Popper, forty years earlier, Weinberg takes a continuous viewpoint.
By mercilessly and obviously without positive feelings criticising everything in Kuhn's theory that neglects continuity he makes the whole theory seem ridiculous. Weinberg acts exactly as predicted by Kuhn. Using a continuous viewpoint he sees only the advantages of science. 

Weinberg asks why question science if such criticism can't be explained anyway? In this way, he denies 'intuition' as 'common sense knowledge system' and suggests there exists only one true view. Choosing only one theory seems wrong to me and possibly to you too. Try the procedure described here and you will conclude that both fighters were right: 

(1) decide the truth or falseness of both theories ONLY against their own presumptions; 
(2) accept that having more truths is better than having just one. 

So seen in their own view both are right. Weinberg in stating that science continuously offers the best of human imagination, and Kuhn in saying that to find new ways such a science incidentally needs a severe shock.
Kuhn never really defended himself, but using his theory is clear that he thought that the medal supported dogmatic position that Weinberg takes asks for severe shock treatment. That means that seen rationally his relative truth is not better, but seen from outside rationalism evidently bigger.