>No, you are deliberately conflating two different definitions of the word capitalist to suit your argument. I hate to be the guy citing a dictionary, but since your definition of the term is not one shared by everyone else, let's consult Miriam-Webster:

Dictionaries are notoriously terrible when it comes to political theory, precisely because of widespread incorrect use of political definitions. I gave you a form of the Marxist definition, which explains what a capitalist is and why.

>>Capitalism: noun > >>1: a person who has capital especially invested in business > >>2: a person who favors capitalism > >You are saying that only definition 1 is valid and that definition 2 does not exist (even though it's the one that more relates to discussions of philosophy, and is obviously the meaning I intended in my comment).

The second one is clearly contradictory, people have just used it wrongly time and time, likely due to repeated wrongful use by capitalist media in an attempt to think your pension savings makes you a capitalist or a beneficiary of capitalism.

I also highly struggle with why you thought this semantic battle was necessary even after I addressed your point or why how a person self-identifies ideologically has any impact on the material truth of their class relations.

>You do not get to gatekeep how the word is used or decide which definition is or isn't useful. You also do not get to tell other people what their beliefs are. Sorry.

I gave the only meaningful definition of the word in a philosophical place. A capitalist makes their income from capital, juxtaposed to workers who are forced to sell their labor-power in order to procure a wage necessary to purchase the means of subsistence.

Way to go to purposely miss every point I made or outright ignore them by playing a game of semantics though.