There is no such system as "capitalism". I have not seen a definition of capitalism which was not either contradictory, or which relied on sufficiently general

There is no such system as "capitalism". I have not seen a definition of capitalism which was not either contradictory, or which relied on sufficiently general abstractions (utility instead of profit, social contracts and monopolies on force instead of states). The level of authoritarian control you would have to have over a society in order to prevent a system of government from forming would certainly itself qualify as a system of government. So free enterprise always generates some sort of governing actor, and any mandate that results is, by the transitive property, the result of free enterprise. Since all systems are ultimately the result of free enterprise and "rational" motives, it's hard to argue that "Capitalism" is anything but the trivial classifier, if it is well defined. I'd argue that the successful policies that Americans incorrectly attributed to the "capitalism" were actually attributable to the sort of meta-philosophy of pragmatism. Which is the philosophy of not really having a philosophy, and never letting any belief become sacred (A philosophy which we certainly do not adhere to now).