It’s worth noting that government placement of massive economic projects over the desires or even well-being of local people is a feature of Soviet and modern day Chinese economic systems.
And so it seems, American capitalism as well.
And so it seems, American capitalism as well.
It has way more in common with government sanctioned megacorps like the British East India Trading Company than laissez faire and the invisible hand.
The mercantile class gaining the power previously held by the feudal aristocracy, including that of directing government, is exactly capitalism.
It's not the fiction invented by defenders of capitalism in response to socialist critiques of real-world capitalism, but that fiction isn't what the term “capitalism” was coined to refer to, nor is it something ever demonstrated to be practical anywhere.
Distinction and nuance let us have more interesting conversations than the yelling matches on cable news channels.
I didn't provide a definition, I just pointed to a factor which is intrinsic too (and the fundamental motivation for) capitalism.
> not meaningfully distinct from already coined terms like aristocracy, oligarchy, and plutocracy.
The described factor is more specific than those because of the identification of which specific class is privileged. It is, however, an instance of all three of those things.
When you've put in millions of dollars into a business, or are receiving millions of dollars from one's operation, the last thing you want is the invisible hand taking it away from you.
If the cheapest[3] way to protect your investment is innovation, capitalists will pursue it. If corruption and cronyism are cheaper, then capitalists will pursue that, instead. Capitalism, as an ideology, does not have any checks and balances on the morality of its participants, or about preserving a free and fair market. In fact, it very explicitly opposes any such checks, or balances.
Communists would say that 'the Capitalists will sell us the rope we will hang them with'. That didn't turn out to be the case, but it wasn't due to a lack of willingness on the ropemaker's end. We've got to grow rope sales 20% YoY, to justify our valuation, after all.
[1] http://www.csun.edu/~vcact00f/497CapStone/Peter%20Thiel_%20C...
[2] I suppose one could argue that PT is no true capitalist.
[3] Cheapest, risk-adjusted.
Capitalism is an economic system where voluntary transactions and commonly accessible markets are essential. Let's not muddle terminology to get in political digs.
You seem to be complaining most about when capitalism ends or fails, not capitalism itself.
That's it. Accessible markets and voluntary transactions, and all that other stuff is window dressing. If they actually were sufficient for capitalism, then an economic system where the profits of all enterprise were state-owned, but all transactions were voluntary would also be capitalism (Despite the noteworthy absence of... capitalists.)