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.

>>4

From a free market we get poor who are not prevented by patents, licensing, price controls, mandates, and regulations from competing against the bigger businesses.
From the free market we get a rich elite who aren't subsidized by the government, so aren't as rich as before.
Taking the two together, you get the poor rising up and the rich falling down. And don't even start on the "progressive income tax" because that's a myth.
In the free market, competition works better than it does today at preventing monopolies (it is presently stopped/slowed by government).

And that "OEN HUEJ MONOPOLY" thing is a load of shit. If there was one big company that controlled almost everything, I could compete easily. If they're pricing themselves where "monopolies" do, then I can easily undercut them on simple services. Once I get some money, I can expand my output. Time goes on, I compete by undercutting them.

A monopoly that sells everything at a low price else is harmless. A monopoly that sells everything at a high price will be undercut. A monopoly that treats it's workers well is harmless. A monopoly that treats it's workers like shit will lose their workers to someone else.