> Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them
I disagree with this assessment. The reason systems are breaking are inherent contradictions in capitalism that inevitably lead to crisis. See Crisis Theory [0] for a more thorough description of the mechanisms at play.
Communism doesn't need to be authoritarian either - Salvador Allende famously tried for a more democratic socialism before the CIA couped him away - can't have the systemic competitor look good...
Then what would be your explanation for why the issues seem to be largely contemporary in nature, and in particular with 1971 being such a critical inflection point? That 1971 site is alluding to the end the Bretton Woods economic system. Prior to that date, 'money printing' by the government had extreme external constraints. After 1971, we became a completely free floating fiat economy.
This was a radical economic shift. And at first it yielded massive returns as one could expect with the ability to suddenly have infinite money in a world where, to date, money had been very "real." But over time, it turns out that pumping endless 'funny money' into an economy causes lots of bad things to happen, even when we can export much of the immediately apparent inflation.
Essentially the modern economic system we have only truly began in 1971. And it's separate from capitalism itself. The powers that be wanted the power to print unlimited money. And so they claimed that power. Prior to that year we lived in an entirely different world. For instance one interesting inflation index is a can of Campbell's tomato soup. From its introduction in 1897 to 1973 it cost about $0.10. Today it costs $1.24.
I do not believe the problems are contemporary in nature. We've had the Great Depression, the Long Depression of 1879 - 1899 etc etc.
Labor value and market value have been out of sync since the beginning of market capitalism. You might have a point about the end of Bretton-Woods making it worse, but it has been broken since the beginning.
I think there is a clear argument to be made that this is provably false. For instance the median income in 1960 for a worker was $5,435. [1] The GDP/capita at the time was $3002 [2]. So a median worker was getting very nearly 2x a share if the entire national GDP was equally distributed! And note that is for people with any income. That census did not collect data on 1960 for college educated full time workers, but based on trends from later years it was about 3x higher on average!
This is why the older generations were initially so aloof about the economic state of the US. They grew up in a time where they could go to college, graduate debt free, have a decent car, and even enough saved up for a down payment on their [first] house - all on income from a part time job.
You literally could not get a much more fair compensation for labor, because that's a huge chunk of the entire GDP being derived from median wages! Of course now we live in a time when the median wage is something like $50k and the GDP/capita is $90k. And many critical things, like housing, have increased in cost way beyond the rate of inflation, to the point that a median house is now something like 7 years of median labor which is just lol stupid driven by funny money that, again, mostly did not exist before 1971.
But getting back to 1960 - how would this, in any way, seem to suggest an out of sync labor value? If anything the flaw in my argument is that labor compensation was perhaps unsustainably high, because wages that high were only possible when you had a relatively large chunk of the population not working. On the other hand if we're going to create a society with a sustainable fertility rate and well raised children, then it's completely sustainable.
This is the context for Kennedy stating things like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Now a days even a pretty ardent nationalist would have to hold back a groan on hearing things like that, but it was a different world in the 60s.
I disagree with this assessment. The reason systems are breaking are inherent contradictions in capitalism that inevitably lead to crisis. See Crisis Theory [0] for a more thorough description of the mechanisms at play.
Communism doesn't need to be authoritarian either - Salvador Allende famously tried for a more democratic socialism before the CIA couped him away - can't have the systemic competitor look good...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory