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.

>>21

In reality it's no different from a bank hiring a security guard, except it's provided mass-market style. It is not giving people too much power. If a protection agency violates my rights, I can rightfully violate theirs, and my protection agency can rightfully violate theirs.

There is no "democracy" in Agorism. Bureaucrats are not answerable to "the people". There are no "officers" to enforce the "law" as we understand the idea of "law" today.

Agorism is individualistic to the core, democracy is collectivistic.
Security that fails to protect people gets fired. That's incentive. That's motivation. It works everywhere else on the market, you're being arbitrary if you think it won't work in the case of security.
Forensic scientists that fail at their job get fired. Their testimony is trusted in court because they take oaths. Under agorism, it would more likely be a contract stating submission to enforcement action taken for giving false testimony. But if their job is to testify, they'll sign it.
The "law" for Agorism is the rules that the owner of property says the rules are. There is no "law" which overrides private property rights. If you kill me, you took my life without my permission. That's illegal. If you force me to do something, you took my time and effort without my permission. That's illegal. If you steal my property, you are taking or using it without my permission. That's illegal. It's not illegal because some democratically-appointed legislature said it was. It's illegal because the owner of the property being abused says it is.