You seem to have a rather viscerally negative response to the article. I’m not advocating either way for the article’s premises or conclusions, I’m merely trying to present a rephrasing of the strongest form of its argument, in an effort to help intellectually engage with it.

> What I find “crudely reductionist,” in the article is the very idea of “capitalist realism,” and the idea that some notion called “capitalism,” can be the cause of all depression.

No, that’s your same reductionist interpretation of the article’s complex claims. You’re just re-stating your initial reaction to the article, while saying it’s what the article is arguing.

The article does not argue or suggest that capitalism “can be the cause of all depression”. Instead, it argues that, because capitalism is the political economy within which our current notion of depression is framed, the act of individualizing depression, while ignoring extrinsic factors as potentially causal and/or contributory, is something we should reconsider.

> Are we to think that depression did not exist in the Soviet Union? Or perhaps in the mercantilist kingdoms of the colonial era? Or perhaps not in the Roman Empire? Or what about ancient China or India?

This is a rather disingenuous bit of whataboutism. The article made no such claims. Given the article’s actual claims, I’d wager the author would suggest we should be looking to the social, political, and economic structures of those specific societies and systems to better understand and contextualize the depression that undoubtedly did exist.

Again, you’re being extremely reductionist here—you’re attempting to turn the article’s grappling with a complex problem, and attempts to contextualize it within the social, political, and economic structures in which it arises into some form of Universal Theory of Capitalist Depression. That’s your argument, not the article’s.

There’s some irony in saying “capitalist realism tries to fool us that this is all there could ever be,” when the article itself is declaring that capitalism (or any -ism) can only be some kind of evil force which naturally causes depression.

The article doesn’t quite declare that. That seems to be your own reaction to the article placing capitalism and the material conditions under which it subjects people (and the impact that may have on mental health) under its microscope. However, this irony you seem to see is quite unclear to the point of not seeming ironic at all.

> Certainly the “capitalism” as practiced in the United States is far different than that practiced in Norway, as well as the statist system in practice in Cuba and currently falling apart in Venezuela.

The author points this out directly on multiple occasions. The author is primarily concerned with Danish society, but alluded to the great differences in the US and elsewhere, and wonders aloud about what impact the different material conditions in which people live might have on their mental health individually and collectively.

> It’s hard for me to see this author as doing anything other than taking a victim mentality and trying to prescribe it for everyone else, laying Universal blanket blame on the authors preferred heresy.

That seems to be your interpretation, and clearly explains why you’re so completely missing the article’s point. The article is directly arguing against the hyper-individualistic pathology of depression as it exists in current discourse. The article is suggesting that what we call depression could very well be a normal reaction to the material conditions within capitalist political economy. If it is, the article thinks, that’s a game-changer.

It really sounds like you’re offended by taking a critical look at capitalism, as if you believe capitalism (or any other kind of ism) does not engender social, political, and economic structures that both serve and reinforce it—or that humans might not have universally positive reactions to such structures and conditions. From crippling, life-long reliance on debt, extreme competition, increasing inequality, and social expectations to be always happy, coupled with always laying the blame for failing to navigate such structural pressures directly on individuals, the author suggests perhaps we should be careful about absolving the structures themselves of any responsibility for their impact on people.

Again, it’s fine to disagree with the author’s conclusions. But I think you should be engaging with the strongest version of the article’s arguments, not reducing them to overly simplistic forms that make it feel easier to dismiss without consideration.