Not only does that not fit the wikipedia definition of capitalist, it does not fit any commonly used definition of the term.
In an argument, you do not win simply by asserting that the terms being used in that discussion mean something different from what everybody else thinks. Words have shared meanings for a reason - so that we can use them and know what people are talking about.
By all means, make your arguments, and if you like, explain your alternative definitions and the reasons for that. But it's a bit much to get snippy at others for challenging your custom definitions.
I may differ from the commons in semantics, but (sociologist) Bourdieu's arguments on capital are now well accepted at the highest levels of culture.
If someone owns a car, or a house, or shoes that someone has capital. So one cannot just attack "capitalism", without attacking oneself. It's the wrong debate. Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
