[vadimberman]

> However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.

How? Why? Where?

I am merely saying that since the opposing ideology makes the same statement, the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.

The moon landing can actually provide a great example. Take the "moon landing hoax" conspiracies. One of the first counter-claims is, if it were really a hoax, wouldn't the Soviets shout about it from the rooftops?

In our example, claiming that the American workers work more than Medieval serfs would be an excellent point for the Soviet propaganda. But since they didn't, and since in my school, the capitalism (otherwise hated) was taught as a step forward, the reduction of working hours clearly isn't a "capitalism's enduring myth".

My main issue, like I said many times by now, is why bring -isms to the study in the first place? Publish the figures, bring more sources from all over the world, make conclusions, THEN try to explain why it emerged. But no, that's not what the article says.

Seriously, does the word "Communism" work like a magic incantation that makes people ignore everything else?

>> we are asked to imagine

> not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".

Just read the article.

[Double_Cast]

> why bring -isms to the study in the first place?

The article isn't bringing "-isms" or ideologies into the article. The article intended to contrast the Modern West's economic system [0] with the Feudal System. But you are interpreting the article to have contrasted Private Ownership with Public Ownership.

> the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.

It makes sense under an interpretation you seem to have missed. Colloquially, "Capitalism" means different things under different contexts. Furthermore, it's possible to classify types of economies along boundaries other than Private Ownership vs Public Ownership. Analogously, there's more colors in the rainbow than just Red and Green. Attributing a property to Red doesn't necessarily attribute the opposite property to Green. Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the text was not the intended interpretation.

[0] which in reality is not a Free-Market Economy, but more accurately described as an Industrialized Mixed-Market Economy.