Those composers are famous because they were pioneers in the development of music and their work has been used to educate musicians in virtually all countries during the last century. There are composers creating similarly valuable music today, sometimes working in cinema or video games, and composers doing pioneering work, usually in experimental music. They aren’t as famous because their work isn’t being used worldwide to educate musicians, but they might be by 2123, provided society hasn’t collapsed.
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops"
Why are y’all in the comments trying to act like one or another universalist position has to fit like a sock to all situations? There are debates where one side is blatantly wrong and the other is blatantly correct, debates where one side is wrong and the other has some points right, debates where both sides have some points right, debates where both sides would do well to return to school and debates where no side can be objetively correct because they’re discussing something intrinsically subjective. The “enlightened centrist” meme is useful to mock the stupid position that “the truth is always in the middle”, but if you think you’re always going to find someone in any debate who has the right answer, you’re going to find yourself siding with stupid shit all the time.
There’s a hell of a difference between calling random commenters “dickriders” and having your boss, whom you have a very unequal relationship with, berate you like this.
Fascism has done far more harm to the world. Barely any half-serious anarcho-capitalist has had a hand into influencing much practical policy. Even Milei is backing down from some of his campaign proposals, and he’s just gotten elected.
It could be argued that, if the economy works in a non-hierarchical way, there are less difficulties to break down some forms of historical social discrimination. This is because, if wealth has historically accumulated in the hands of some white people (for example), those rich people might want to promote racist divisions to frame social issues in a way that their excessive wealth and power doesn’t receive much attention. However you’re absolutely correct in that ending capitalism is not a guarantee to solve sexism, racism, homophobia or ableism. You can look at historical examples of genuine attempts to achieve socialism, such as 1938 Catalonya, and while you might find them more socially progressive than their contemporary neighbours, we wouldn’t say that they had views on gender equality particularly impressive to today’s eyes.
Pollution is a somewhat different issue. Due to capitalism’s need to constantly expand (lest it degenerates into feudalism), it is going to constantly fight any and all attempts to regulate the exploitation of natural resources, and a lot of society is going to feel incentivized to go along with it because it looks like a good short-term solution to economic emancipation to a lot of people. Still, you could also end capitalism and find that the system you replace it with still has difficulties to curtail pollution, due to different reasons.