Suppose the article had said "One small step for man, one big step for mankind." You are responding with the equivalent of "What about womankind? There are female engineers at NASA. Isn't the moon landing a big step for women too? Neil Armstrong is clearly a misogynist." We can debate whether to replace "mankind" with a more gender-neutral term. But nobody would interpret Neil Armstrong as having a political agenda against women.
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.
I generally dislike the word "capitalism" because (like the word "man") it's ambiguous. By capitalism do you mean Private Ownership? a market economy? deregulation? Laissez Faire? Regardless of its definition and etymology, people irl use it to signify different concepts. Which dilutes the semantics and relies on context to properly resolve. In the article, perhaps "capitalism's most durable myths" should have been replaced with "industrialized-societies' most durable myths". But nobody except you seems to have interpreted the article as having a political agenda against Private Ownership.
> we are asked to imagine
not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".
> 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".
> 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.
But even if it were the case, the fact that the same idea was commonplace in the USSR means that it's not inherently connected to capitalism.
And, obviously, I am still wondering why people decided it was about capitalism vs. Communism.