Define "Capitalism"

The word "Capitalism" is used differently by it's opponents and supporters and others. In fact, I've seen definitions ranging from "The system of corporate power and relative lack of support for the poor", "Any system where Capital plays a major factor" (the author of that definition called communism a form of capitalism, showing how confused the definition is), "A free market with private property", and a few others.

When people calling themselves "Capitalists" use the word, they're talking about a relatively free market with a relative scarcity of collective property and mostly privately owned means of production.

When people calling themselves "Communists" use the word, they're talking about an exploitive system of corporate profits, worker oppression, and a wide gap between the rich and the poor.

Call me crazy, but these are not the same thing at all. They aren't mutually exclusive, but nor are they inable to exist without the other. The communist definition of capitalism applies better to Fascism than what a Capitalist is talking about. And it's possible to have private ownership of the means of production without having corporations.

When commie libs and capitalist pigs argue about "Capitalism" they're talking about two totally different things.

Obviously nobody here advocates the oppression of the poor and a massive class gap.

Discuss.

>>17
It is the opposite because it's a mirror image.

For example. If security firms are privately owned, they can be owned by other large property owners. The property owners own the law, which is supposedly something agorism is against. It is just the mirror image of communism whereby the law makers own the property. If everyone were really nice to each other, it might work, but that's impossible.

5: Certain systems require impossible levels of motivation in order to exceed contemporary systems in efficiency.