"People that complain about capitalism never want to look at more than, at most, about 150 years of history. Look at a minimum of 800-1000 years if you want a significant sample size."
That points us somewhere between 1014 and 1214 AD. I don't know any scholar that would say you had capitalist societies back then. And you wonder why I'm asking for _your_ definition of capitalism!?
Nevertheless, you offer some points towards your definition, so there we go:
* freemarket (I assume, Adam Smith's freemarket, here, correct me if I'm wrong)
* producers chase consumer resources
* Consumers call the shots by voting for the best producers with their money
* enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud from having much of an impact
* also requires limits on regulation to prevent THAT from having a significant impact on markets. ...so yes, up to a point, Somalia gets out of the equation since it lacks enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud (I would better say "rule of law" instead of regulations, but I can accept this is a minor detail within context).
So then, you need an enforcement body strong enough to enforce the required regulations, which we usually identify to government which can either be tiranny or democracy/republic. I'll take the second since it is usually a 'standard' to accept the democracy/republic is a needed requirement for truly free markets.asdf
Unless you are talking about a short city-state, we are being to talk about representatadfive democracy or republic, which means authority of the people is managed by their representants.
So we have a strong enough government, constituency and their elective officers in a society model primed by the value of capital within a free market.
Under these circumnstances, moreso when you add global markets to the equation, it is unavoidable for at least some comercial entities to accrue enough power to be significant at the government level (much more than that and you fail on your point about enough regulation, much less and the companies are inefficient) and, in any case, they'll grow very strong when considered against a single individual.
This means that at least some comercial entities will accrue enough capital as either to brive elected officers or even to directly lobby the government to have laws that kill any or both of your last two points in their favour and once that starts to happen, no stable system can avoid it to go further.
You see, under a free and global market there's no way you can avoid (some) corporations to grow to high level; then there's no way you can avoid them (because they are so big) bribing or lobbying government to pass laws in their favour, then rinse an repeat.
This *shouldn't* happen in theory, it is still unavoidable in practice.
"in your twisted mind that values the well being of the collective more than the rights of individuals, I'm sure it is."
You see, no mention about my own position on this. Just a chain of cause-and-effect elements.