Thank you, this is exactly the answer I would expect from this kind of forum. I am all but an anti-capitalist per se. I believe that, among all forms of societ

Thank you, this is exactly the answer I would expect from this kind of forum. I am all but an anti-capitalist per se. I believe that, among all forms of societal organization, capitalism has proven to be the most effective at taking masses out of poverty. I am also very aware that different types of capitalism exist, and in my critique I'm usually referring to the American "unbridled" or more or less libertarian Capitalism, rather than the social democratic flavor we have in Europe. We even have chinese capitalism, the most beautiful and effective economic oxymoron to ever prove effective at what it does. My gripe is mostly with the American form, and its role as a fundamental engine of disequalities. It's socialism for the ultrarich, as many capitalists in America would define it with no issue. I do think that this explains not all, but a lot of the undercurrents that lead to what this article described, as most of this trend seem to spread from a globalized push for optimization through homologation. Especially when discussing with an educated American counterpart, I have the feeling that capitalism is the untouchable axiom of everything - which is expressed in your "annoyance", or at least that's what I perceive. "Oh, here we go, let's blame it all again on capitalism..." To me that's like fish complaining that everything around them is always wet, but getting annoyed if anyone mentions water. Of course, getting out of the water is not an option for them, and sure there is no alternative for us about capitalism. In this case the options are twofold: go the Mark Fisher way, conceding to the despair of a lack of an alternative; promote constant discussion and self-reflection about it, in a democratic and dialectically constructive way, to make the best of the water we all swim in.