You mean the central strategy of creating the money, imposing capitalism, and violently enforcing extreme privilege/deprivation? Usually capitalism doesn’t need to be imposed. Even so called “traditional economy” involves violence as a means of constricting it, but is otherwise similar to capitalism. It’s just that a medieval village dies if its smith doesn’t make needed tools in time, isn’t big enough for two smiths to compete, so if such a competition happens both will simply die of hunger. So all competition in “traditional economy” setting would be first validated by social mechanisms like elders of a village agreeing or being allowed by the guild, if in a town. And so on. “Capitalism” is what you get when you take that traditional economy and the newly arrived need for mobile labor resources - workers for the factories, laborers for big farms, and so on. You need a socio-economic system where a smith’s son can be a carpenter and vice versa, and both can be recruited and made soldiers. In the traditional economy there’s no such mobility because there’s no need. Cases where you change places are something exceptional, rare enough to be decided by authority to allow or not. People living in such societies would think you’re as good as a thief if you tried to compete with their local hereditary smith or carpenter. They’d punish you as a thief. Another thing similar to capitalism, but with constrictions backed by violence, is socialism. In that thing a group of virtuous well-meaning revolutionaries breaks the society over their collective knee in order to make it closer to an utopian idea, and then basically builds state capitalism with them and their descendants on top. You don’t have to enforce privilege and deprivation. The victim’s position is disadvantaged by definition. Because they’re already disconnected from reality and worshiping an obvious pseudo-science? No, libertarian philosophy is the only thing that didn’t go up in flames for me through experience, of what I liked from time to time in my life. It feels somewhat general and stupid, a bit like Tao Te Ching. Tao Te Ching is respected and libertarianism is not. Well, except for China, where it’s the other way around, because Taoism is associated with the century of humiliations and libertarianism is what they approximate with some additional steps. I also wouldn’t say conversational dataset-based systems are obvious pseudo-science when you know what they are and are not trying to replace people with them. And cryptocurrencies have their valid uses. You should ask yourself a question - is the Web a scam? Right after the dotcom bubble and during that - much of it was.