All that you say makes sense. That is why I gave the heads up that the author is doing a “rhetorical trick” by defining “socialism” and “capitalism” in a certain way and then saying “look, these things don’t exist!”
The interesting side in my view was not how person A or person B defines “socialism” and “capitalism”, but rather the critique of our current times contained in the essay.
Ancient geeks argued a lot about “what is the right definition of X??”, missing the nuance that “definitions” are in the end just aids in transmitting information. They matter if you are trying to “box-in” your adversary in a debate, but they should matter much less if both sides are more interested in sharing their picture of the world and reaching common understanding about reality.
Going beyond the simple talking points of “privacy” or “inflation resilience” can be useful.
I liked both examples because it flies in the face of both stereotypical “socialists” and “capitalists”. So this can help monero if you use it in addition to your pro-monero arguments when talking with non-crypto people. Sounds simple, but many times, you need to see the same subject addressed from multiple angles for the message to solidify. 1000 examples are needed to covey the message.
Besides all that it is an entertaining essay and I see nothing wrong with good entertainment :)