Capitalism has a definition, and you don't get to change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism > supposedly non

Capitalism has a definition, and you don't get to change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism > supposedly non-capitalist countries. They are State Capitalist. There's no supposition about it. That the governing body is captured by Communist ideologues has no bearing. Hence there are now billionaires operating in China and Russia. > They existed in the Communist bloc. They were re-introduced so fast it would make your head spin when Lenin's reforms were shown to be a disaster. > Capitalism didn't create markets or a market economy. I did not say so, and this is perhaps where your confusion lies. I said Capitalism is the right to private property and a market economy. I did not say markets are strictly endemic to Capitalism. Although you'll find no scalable one in a liberal democracy devoid of Capitalism. > We can point to an example of people living co-operatively in, oh I don't know, the article of this submission? A co-op is not tantamount to a society, it's an employer. The existence of a co-op in itself does not jeopardize the right to private property, or by extension Capitalism. This is why the quiet part the zealots eventually meander to is "see, we just have to force people to..."