People buying and selling things with minimal interference from protection rackets

A system based on ownership

an economic system which rewards winners and tears itself apart in a winner-takes-all tragic finale without an impartial regulator/judge.

> It's not capitalism, it's technology.

Seems like it's completely capitalism

> but Russia from 1917-60 and China from 1960-2025, say, are big counter-examples.

Russia and China are good examples of that.

We have Khrushchev's memoirs about how, before the communist revolution, he, as a simple worker, lived better than workers live 40 years after the revolution. That is, the period from 1917 to 1960 in the USSR was one of complete stagnation, despite all the technological progress.

And in the example of China in the second half of the 20th century, we see yet another confirmation: their standard of living was literally directly proportional to the level of implementation of capitalist mechanisms.

> As are the many poor countries with capitalist economies.

As far as I understand, there is not a single poor capitalist country. Name a single poor country where private property is reliably protected and people enjoy economic freedom. There is no such country. As soon as even the poorest country begins to protect private property and guarantee economic freedom, it becomes rich within 10 years or something.

Strongly disagree, you're example is nonsensical as it's normally used to prove the exact opposite. Nearly every quality of life improvement and economic boom in China and Russia during those periods are directly tied to adopting some parts of capitalistic systems.

I find that arguments against capitalism like this are unconvincing.

It is like saying that a sword is useless technology. It's directional: the pointy end goes in the other guy.

I think this is really insightful definition, username aside, I think forcing the conversation to include "oligarchical control" (the part people usually have issue with) prevents the lazy "but muh free market!" arguments when discussing our modern economic system

If the value is staying with local workers (social ownership) instead of being captured by some multinational, that's closer to a textbook definition of socialism than capitalism. How's that double-speak?

You're attempting to be sarcastic but that's actually accurate:

> Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance.

Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in.

> Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level <word> allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism".

Yes, it is. When the people who actually do the work own it.