If a certain state of affairs ("crony capitalism" or "socialistic handing out wealth") is a natural consequence of capitalism, as the other commenters are argui

If a certain state of affairs ("crony capitalism" or "socialistic handing out wealth") is a natural consequence of capitalism, as the other commenters are arguing, then does it matter what you call it? If your position is that the current state of affairs (the co-opting of the government by the ultra-wealthy class) is not the natural consequence of capitalism then you should argue that rather than no-true-scotsman-ing whether or not it is truly capitalism.