I wonder whether people these days don't receive a definition and education about "capitalism" akin to that I which I and my contemporaries received -- average

I wonder whether people these days don't receive a definition and education about "capitalism" akin to that I which I and my contemporaries received -- average though it may have been and dim as it is in my mind, these many years later. "Capitalism" emphasizes (take this as a principle, or principal -- regardless of truth) the primacy of capital in production -- and, by extension, ownership. Labor, et al. are not capital. Land, factories, machinery: Those are capital. What happens when capitalism becomes unmitigated and ownership concentrated? Only those who have the capital, can produce. And the more capital they control, the more production they control -- the more power they have. And for some, that power, and being at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, are more important than the absolute progress of the community. (Understand, too, that this is not simply some cartoon-esque "power for power's sake" quest. It leads, overall, to better life, greater health, and better outcomes for one's offspring and friends.) There are many people with much potential and many good ideas, who are not allowed the resources with which to pursue them. This is where that community needs to curtail unbridled capitalism. (The "rising tide that lifts all boats" may lead to a better collective outcome. To greater absolute progress. But also, perhaps, to less control, advantage, and security at the top.) And this is why you never want all of your resources, production, and knowledge to reside under the control of a single authority, nor anything overly approaching such. We aren't all equivalent (i.e. the same, as opposed to some qualitative assessment of "equal"). And we do enhance our abilities by forming organized structures. But no absolute hierarchy has demonstrated the ability to maximize potential -- neither in us nor in biology.