Quotation marks are not exclusively for repeating what the person you reply to wrote verbatim.

So quotation marks are used to blatantly lie and claim someone said what they did not?

You mean, systems except socialism. In socialism’s case, if the result turn out bad “that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves”

Funny how you again, say, "when the results turn out bad," which is objectively something I never said, implied, of gave the air of an impression of. I gave a definition of a physical system in the real world, not a moral analysis, but you are so obsessed with moralism that you keep trying to inject moralism into everything.

You are professionally dishonest, obsessed with lying and misrepresenting everything stated, because you know a single ounce of honesty would reveal how laughable your position is. It is equivalent to arguing that if a republican movement fails to get rid of its monarch, then is proof republicanism is just a form of monarchy, and anyone who disagrees is a moralist saying "when bad things happen" or whatever.

I am sorry, but you are just obviously a troll baiting at this point.

I did not call you “evil”. I said that defining an ideology by a bad outcome is akin to making “being evil” its definition.

No one said anything about "good" or "bad" but you. You are just professionally dishonest.

Did you even read what I wrote? Specifically the part about how concentration of power is an inevitable outcome of all this freedom?

Concentration of power is indeed inevitable from limitless individual freedom. I did not refute that because I don't disagree with it, and it is why capitalist societies always collapse into oligarchies, but socialist societies do not.