It's not possible to accurately argue "she would have received a better/more efficient education in a free market society" because that's a counterfactual.

In fact, it's probably more likely that she dedicated her whole life to overreacting against socialist economics in her writing precisely because she had been exposed to Stalinism/communism.

>"It's not possible to accurately argue "she would have received a better/more efficient education in a free market society" because that's a counterfactual."

Do you mean to say that nobody can ever argue that a historical counterfactual might have been preferable? This would seem to be a rationalization of history, through a refusal to consider alternatives.

Obviously anyone can make any statement/argument, but without the ability to verify it, it doesn't carry much weight.