How is the definition I posted any different from what you quoted? I said the essence, the core required part that defines it as capitalism, there are other historic aspects but I was saying what the most basic elements of it are. And those are what I believe we should have an issue with, and if you remove that essence, it’s not capitalism.

You can own your own stuff with socialism, even a home, that is one of the common misunderstandings of socialism. People want to see a lot of things but dreams cannot always become reality. The fact of the matter is that the state will be co-opted by capitalists and they will remove protections, it’s a natural cause and effect of the capitalist system. It might be possible to manage this tendency but requires so many controls that it gets further from the definition of capitalism and may as well begin to be called market socialism or another term.

I’m not trying to convice the average westerner who has essentially zero history and political education. Not everyone needs to be convinced anyway, most people right now have little agency in politics and don’t care to.