In high-quality columns and academic publications, capitalism is questioned. Society segments with high consciousness discuss the social benefits of capitalism worldwide. There are imperative social problems on a global scale. Significant inequalities lie at the root of the problems. These questionings and discussions are not new at all. There are many reasons for inequalities. The causes emerge in the interplay of economics, politics, and, increasingly, environmental factors. History contributes to the understanding of current developments. Capitalism has passed through many turning points in history. Today, it is at another important turning point. This time, with the teachings of 250 years of its history. The search for solutions to the social problems of humanity is an attempt to try to replace the approaches classified as "mainstream" in the economics literature with new approaches. The reason why mainstream economics is defined as mainstream is that some of the schools of thought under the umbrella of mainstream economics have found widespread policy implications on a global scale in a long period of time. It became more common with the collapse of communist regimes after the Cold War. The "heteredox" approaches opposed to the mainstream in economic thought do not have a single economic school. The word heterodox is Greek. Heter means different, doxa means idea. Heterodox means “different idea” that differs from the traditional, the widely accepted. The orthodox/heterodox distinction not only exists in economics, but also in all sciences. Among the heterodox approaches, for example, there is the Marxist doctrine. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. Feminist economics, environmental economics, post-Keynesian economics, etc. are classified as heterodox, have not appeared in the 2020s. The topics that these different economic schools focus on are so different that it is not possible to make a one-to-one comparison between them. Let's try to look at the crisis of today’s capitalism from a historical perspective. Industrial revolutions began in the 1750s. Today, we are in the fourth. Economics exists as long as humans exist. However, economics as a science came into existence with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Capitalism, throughout the first industrial revolution harmed the working classes. The process created Marx. Between 1870 and 1920, another school called the neoclassical economics existed. It was a continuation of the classical economics tradition initiated by Adam Smith in terms of commitment to the free market principles. Neoclassical economics developed the scientific qualities of economics. In this development process, economics was influenced by Newton and Darwin, and it began to build its "methodological" foundations. Most of the economists were biologists, mathematicians, meteorologists, etc. There were also changes in natural sciences. So-called "natural philosophers" were called “scientists” first time by William Whewell in 1833. What was the world like in the years when neoclassical economics developed? Sectors spreading over a wide geography were forming with the industrialization process. Globalization was on the stage. With globalization, the number of countries participating in international trade was increasing. England was losing its unique position as the only industrialized country. By 1913, the USA had a share of 46%, Germany 23.5%, England 19.5% and France 11% in world trade. Britain was trying to make up for its loss of share in international trade by offering services in trade finance and logistics. Great strides were being made in technology. The telephone, the telegraph, the phonograph, and the cinema were inventions of the time. There were important breakthroughs in the automotive, aerospace and pharmaceutical industries. Aspirin and vacuum cleaner were invented in 1899 and 1908, respectively. The second industrial revolution improved upon those invented in the first, but with one important difference. Mass production was beginning in the manufacturing sectors. Mass production was triggering change and new approaches in manufacturing organizations. The use of scientific methods in business management was beginning.With industrialization and mass production, income was increasing, urbanization was gaining momentum, and the population was increasing. The quantity and quality of consumer goods varied. For example, tea sales in certain scales began in Sir Thomas Lipton's stores, and the number of stores reached 500 in 1899. After agriculture and industry, there was a great transformation in the service sector, too. The white-collar working class emerged and grew. The weight of the state in economic policies was increasing. Therefore, the understanding of the free market was questioned. From 1860 on, workers' unions were banned in England and wage increases were suppressed. The labor market was not operating under free market conditions. An imperialist expansion took place between 1870 and 1914. For this reason, it was thought in those years that the free market economy was imperialist in nature. Neoclassicals were also pro-free trade. England reached low-cost resources through its colonies during the industrialization process. While the developments at the end of the 19th century were taking place, crises were also occurring. Then came two world wars and the Great Depression. The Great Depression created Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics was also classified as part of the mainstream. However, Piero Sraffa, a neoclassical economy critique who lived between 1898-1983, became a part of heterodox economics. Rudolf Hilferding published Finance Capital in 1919 questioning capitalism and arguing that capitalism was monopolistic. Similar developments to the historical developments described above also emerged after the 1980s. There were crises, regional wars, and a return to the Cold War era. In fact, a 3rd world war, the probability of which has been calculated over the Russia-Ukraine war, became debatable. While developments similar to the developments of the last 40 years were seen in the 1870s, humanity's experience with capitalism was approximately 120 years. Now, it's about 250 years old. Capitalism progresses when the political environment is stable. As the democratic qualities of politics increase, capitalism benefits from that. However, does capitalism contribute to political stability or democracy? Didn't the wars and crises that emerged after the developments in the late 19th century also emerge with the developments after the 1980s? While humanity's experience with capitalism was only 120 years old, concerns about environmental problems were reflected in the press even at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, articles are written about the probability of the end of the human species. As capitalism reinvents itself with inventions and technological advances after it collapses, do the inequalities it creates stem from policy shortcomings or, as Hilferding claims, its monopolistic nature? While technology has been advancing following the developments of the 1980s, hasn't capitalism presented monopolistic tendencies? While analyzing the crisis of capitalism, it is necessary to remember that socialist and communist regimes created undemocratic and inefficient systems. In order to be objective, it is important to refer to the fact that while the management of the factors of production was in the hands of the state, there were ruling classes using this power with undemocratic methods. If problems cannot be solved by any system, the problem is in the nature of humankind. At this point, another window opens: political economy from the perspective of behavioral economics. With the old and the new approaches. Is it preferrable to the capitalist system in an egalitarian way or to change the system entirely? This question is not new, either. Yet, there is no common answer that humanity has agreed on yet. Here comes moral philosophy. Behavioral economics and moral philosophy go hand in hand from this point forward. Unless there is improvement on this front, it is impossible for any system to work in favor of humanity. Until today, it has been only partially possible for capitalism, communism, socialism, and social democracy to offer egalitarian benefits to humanity within the framework of human nature. As humanity searches for the ideal point of economic and political order by questioning capitalism and the lessons learned throughout history, environmental problems will not allow it to reach that ideal point. Environmental problems now stand in such an important place that they can be the cause of an inevitable system change. If inevitable system change occur, perhaps more egalitarian but also more regressive democracies will exist. Regardless of any system, the existence of institutions in which cross-control mechanisms are established with democratic, participatory and egalitarian principles is a necessity. This is where institutional economics gives way to economics.