Since my original assertion was that markets aren't actually real, it makes sense that fundamental politics plays a far greater role than many people suspect. I would say that Americans should be learning this lesson at this very moment.
In other words, Democratic Socialism can't account for the future either, maybe it can mitigate some risks a bit better but it's still capitalism with similar risks of disruption-inducing changes.
If we exclude planned socialism from consideration, there would be no reason to single out capitalism for its unpredictability because the rest aren't materially better and arguing about it wouldn't add any insights.
> fundamental politics plays a far greater role than many people suspect.
It does indeed.
> I would say that Americans should be learning this lesson at this very moment.
Popular understanding cannot increase itself, it can only follow education, media and academia but it's lacking there either.
That's different from "change as the original sin" and I'd address it differently, but first allow me to remove the poetry from your statement because it doesn't really contribute to clarity.
Basically you're saying "Capitalism allows unpredictable changes that can break things" as opposed to "Another system (e.g. socialism) plans the future and allows only planned changes".
Both of these may be true for some ideal models but aren't true in reality.
Macro changes under real capitalism can and are entirely predictable although you may not know how to predict them - that's a different issue. They can also be tightly controlled by methods different from socialism.
On the other hand, socialism allows only planned changes... until it doesn't, because of unintended consequences. However, I don't claim that the failure of the USSR's socialist model wasn't foreseen or planned at some level of their leadership, which brings the conversation into the realm of fundamental politics where real capitalism and socialism have a lot more in common than is assumed by their usual treatment as opposites.
> but your post is entirely meaningless
To you. Let's steer clear of wild generalizations, the devil is still in the details. I'd appreciate if you use a clear language instead of me trying to guess the details necessary for a meaningful conversation.