So is Maoism the only recourse?

wat

Your claim is that Capitalism is unsustainable do to the very scarcity of capital. You also seem to imply that nation states who endorse economic growth are the primary engines for this unsustainable consumption with the line " Countries competing against each other like this is not healthy". Your hinting at " something better" implies Communism in some form. Therefore we can presume that your implicit argument is that Capitalism leads to the ultimate consumption of scarce capital (be it raw goods, human beings, land, etc.) and this is propagated by nation-states seeking to expand their power, making them inherently bourgeois institutions. From this i gathered that your position was Maoist, as Mao claimed that bourgeois elements can and will develop even after the proletariat revolution, requiring purging on occasion (Cultural Revolution), as this is a largely anarchist position that still solves the problem of vast consumption of capital by nation-states. My intention then was to confirm if this line of reasoning was correct, and if it was not then to be corrected as to what your intentions with this comment were.

"Your hinting at " something better" implies Communism in some form." Well you were right there.

You seem to be implying Maoism is out, and Leninism is out due to the inherent centralization of a Vanguard party (this also removes Stalinism, if we presume Stalinism is not just hyperleninism). What then is the replacement for the nation-state, that does not risk total consumption of some form of capital or another?

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, with all this guessing. Communism in some form, yes. But I'm not even saying the system we need even exists yet.