Maybe you are right, at least partially, I can identify many of its flaws myself. However for example my homeland has tried communism/socialism, and went through brief periods of anarchy, and the same can be told about all. My family has lost a lot to all of these experiments (including the current capitalist one), but stability and modest prosperity are the best, and anarchism is as far from that as it gets, especially as represented by the Antifa.

Even the communist regime persecuted anarchism. (though they supported it when it was not at home, as a destabilizing tool)

> the same can be told about all.

Because the idea that there's one simple ideologically-based system that's going to solve all problems is simplistic.

Markets are useful, but that doesn't mean that societies should be organized around entirely around markets and private ownership of almost everything as the primary governing principle.

The US has really taken this to an extreme, to the point that it has legally ruled that "money is speech", which essentially guarantees an oligarchy.

Treating capitalism and communism/socialism as two sides of a binary choice is a propaganda trick, basically.

if the US considered money as speech, like code is speech, we would not be having crypto math wars on crypto/financial privacy as a concept. Tornado-cash for example would not be getting an execution with an audience in the joker "send a message" style.

No, the US govt does NOT consider "money is speech".

Worth noting that at scale larger than family/clan/tribe it beats communism and feudalism on all relevant - to people - metrics.

(though unconstrained capitalism is not ideal)

> unworkable system

? unconstrained pure capitalism has bad effects, but it is not unworkable unlike say pure communism applied at scale larger than a family

> Worth noting that at scale larger than family/clan/tribe it beats communism and feudalism on all relevant - to people - metrics.

No, it demonstrably doesn’t. The countries that have the least problems with the issues I described are ones that combine market economics with socialist approaches.

In many ways, those countries are closer to market socialism than they are to pure capitalism.

> those countries are closer to market socialism than they are to pure capitalism

so they are closer to capitalism than communism

> US’s historical use of socialism and communism

I never visited USA or America

> China succeeds while the US is failing

Part of China's success was more capitalism and far less communism

(and China's success is in large patch catchup after what Mao et all did)