The nature of capitalism

From "History of capitalism" at Wikipedia:

• From the "Historiography" section:

  The historiography of capitalism can be divided into two broad schools. One is associated with economic liberalism, with the 18th-century economist Adam Smith as a foundational figure. The other is associated with Marxism, drawing particular inspiration from the 19th-century economist Karl Marx. Liberals view capitalism as ... Marxists view capitalism as ...
  

• From the "Origins" section:

  The origins of capitalism have been much debated (and depend partly on how capitalism is defined). The traditional account, originating in classical 18th-century liberal economic thought and still often articulated, is the 'commercialization model'. This sees capitalism originating in trade. Since evidence for trade is found even in paleolithic culture, it can be seen as natural to human societies. In this reading, capitalism emerged from earlier trade once merchants had acquired sufficient wealth (referred to as 'primitive capital') to begin investing in increasingly productive technology. This account tends to see capitalism as a continuation of trade, arising when people's natural entrepreneurialism was freed from the constraints of feudalism, partly by urbanization. Thus it traces capitalism to early forms of merchant capitalism practiced in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

The "Origins" paragraph describes the "liberal" (not Marxist) view. The "Historiography" paragraph associates that view with Adam Smith.

Their explanation ("capitalism emerged ... once merchants had acquired sufficient wealth") reminds me of Smith's Book 1 Chapter 6, the when people have accumulated stock part:

In that early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another...

As soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their labour adds to the value of the materials...

 

I have a bit of trouble with Wikipedia's "Origins" paragraph, with the summary/overview sentence: "This account tends to see capitalism as a continuation of trade," they say, "arising when people's natural entrepreneurialism was freed ...."

The word "continuation" makes me uncomfortable. They don't say it, but I read them to mean that capitalism will continue to continue. But this is an assumption that must be pointed out and examined, because it is not true. For unless the process is understood and the economy is properly managed, the cycle of civilization assures that capitalism will come to an end, and that what comes next -- including the end of capitalism -- will be brought on by the "continuing" evolution of capitalism.

Capitalism is the process of accumulating wealth. Capitalism is a process. It is not a state of being. It is a state of change.