Great points.

There were lots of great software teams before Agile. Waterfall was an aberration inflicted on the software world by PMI. Before PMI, some most projects were waterfall but most were not. I was on some extremely agile teams during the 1980s - teams that built things that customers _could_ rely on.

Scrum did nothing to improve things. It make things worse. Scrum trivializes the challenges of software development, shifting the focus to things that don't matter much.

The central issue comes down to the kinds of leadership in play. A team needs leadership. A team is unlikely to be able to self-organize unless there is an effective leader setting the team up for success - getting it what it needs, intervening when the team gets stuck, setting healthy patterns such as Socratic discussion, making sure the team gets organized, and nudging it toward timely decisions and actions - otherwise things often languish.

Scrum deals with none of these things. And software teams have so many things to get in place with regard to the continuous delivery stream - things that Scrum distracts from.

Finally, but excessively focusing on the team instead of the product, Scrum fails to explain how a team fits into an organization. No team is entirely autonomous. That is why Gene Kim's "three ways" recommend that one focus end-to-end, and looking at the delivery stream as a system, instead of having team blinders.

Scrum also blew up the connection between product design and development: a PO acting, in effect, as a user proxy, shoveiing features at teams to implement.

Scrum is not part of the solution: it is part of the problem. It is control oriented (control theory?) process that teams don't need.