I have the, perhaps, quirky view that capitalism is an emergent property of human nature. People always have and always will trade. From that fact emerges private property and economic systems, great and small.
How and to what extent it emerges depends on context. The government and how it interacts with the market being a big part of the context, the judaeo-christian ethic being another.
So we have only a definitional quibble. What I am calling capitalism is somewhat broader than what you are calling it. It really matters not at all; we do not appear to disagree on substance.
Thanks for the explanation. I defer completely to your right of presenting an entirely new framework. However, in this case you the onus is on you to introduce new terms. You may want to call your system something like neo-capitalism, or super-capitalism, if you like. But, forgive me, you cannot expect people to understand you when you, and you alone, use well-defined terms is a different meaning.
But, like you said, given your interpretation of the word, we may be in alsmost complete agreement. Thanks for your reply.