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.

>>31 What if you are a libertarian saying democrats are traitors, socialists and bitches all the time? Or saying Bush is the choice for libertarians? Not implying that this is a description of you, but electing a guy that in turn elects John "George Wallace" Ashcroft to a high office is a slap in the face of meritocracy and equality.

Libertarians value social and economic liberalism equally, and should try to create stable progress in both areas as according to human limitations and possibilities. If you are a Hayekian or Randroid - fine by me but don't fuck things up for your species because you are high on "truth".