Did I though? Success is the differentiator post-mutation. If mutation itself ceases due to the prerequisite, evolution does too. But why do you feel the need to read and dissect an analogy so literally in the first place? It's not the point.
But then your reply doesn't make sense. Here's what parent said:
> There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success.
That part would imply that mutation is happening, just unsuccessfully. If you wanted to disagree with that, then your analogy was just confusing.
There are myriad attempts to try alternatives to some ideal “market economy”. From Venezuela to Burning Man to Wikipedia to China to Japan to Romania to the Canadian wheat board.
What succeeds, lives.
Evolution is such a beautiful, elegant discovery. It underlies so much behaviour in the universe, from biology to politics to economics to culture.
If you insist on calling it an analogy--even though it is in fact the reality of the situation, which is just one more example of you misunderstanding it--your use of it is faulty, and so your "analogy" is failing.
And towards the overall point, there are plenty of competing ideas and executions to the market economy. While I sustain none are succeeding, many adventurers in this field would disagree.
While you just don't seem to know about them, perhaps you could take this conversation as a call to action to go search for the many groups working on testing different economical models and go join them. It could be fun!
But you're not done there. After you've decided to overrule that the author of the analogy used it as an analogy you extrapolate that since I'm not following your evolutionary wanderings I'm clearly ignorant of politics and economics altogether. What the hell?