The whole premise of this article is flawed. It targets an article deemed weak so it sets up a straw man. Then it attacks the straw man rather than the argument including on points not relevant to the conclusion (eg how money was created). It’s conclusions don’t follow the argument.

The final examples are deeply flawed. The Soviet Union was unstable. It lost almost immediately by competing with capitalism, it just took several decades. China has been a form of state sponsored capitalism since the 80s.

Any article which wants to claim there is an alternative to capitalism has to demonstrate that there is a way to organise society that is popular that doesn’t involve any buying and selling at all.

And remember, you won’t win the argument by attacking this reply. You can only do that by successfully attacking the philosophical roots of capitalism as put forward by well known economists and academics (not me).

No one has done that and no one will because fundamentally there really is no alternative to capitalism. The best you can hope for is to regulate and tax it like they do in Scandinavia,

I will leave you with one final thought. If you want to visit Marx’s grave in Highbury cemetery you have to pay a capitalist to get in.