Asklemmy

in a capitalist system, psychopathy is more evolved because you get to climb the corporate ladder faster.

Which is why street youth crime in USSR was almost hierarchical - all territory was divided between gangs, their culture was almost commonly accepted, their leaders were well known to everyone living in their territory and the militia, and so on. And miraculously all that crap started receding when USSR ceased to exist. Despite still having a lot of presence. There are opinions that KGB simply preferred to have known and controlled crime instead of something growing under the radar. That's irony.

OK, what I meant - that youth culture was psychopathic enough.

but I would refrain from using evolution/DNA example

I mean DNA logic, which is more complex than the "natural selection of good\bad genes" people often imagine to be evolution.

But this assumes that capitalism is unchanging, and final form of our society. But in reality, we can change the system. Under socialism or social democracy (with strict laws), psychopathy would no longer be ‘more evolved’.

This whole statement is honestly unchanged enough since 1919. Social democrats have become a normal political force even before WWI. And socialism has led to pretty psychopathic regimes.

Marxist idea of formations and stages reeks of magic for me. It's extrapolation of the way history books and popular imagination show what has already happened to the future that hasn't and things not yet known. It's not synthesis, instead it's more like extrapolation of limited projections.

Lysenko and Lepeschinskaya in Stalin's USSR were honestly a logical result of such perception of the world. It's often said that Stalin's regime was in fact fascist, and that it wasn't correct by communist ideology, and so on, but that idea doesn't hold when you study it closely. It was both in vibes and in ideas of the future pretty Marxist. So were Khmer Rouge. And both had that flaw of common idea that the future is known.

It's a trait of religions, by the way.