@lain @Moon It's tricky, and I can see the merits of both approaches:

On the one hand, you're right that "capitalism" acts as a thought-terminating cliche, similar to "Ayn Rand". It's been brainwashed into people that capitalism = everything that is evil, and socialism = capitalism minus the bad parts and no bad side-effects.

It's similar to Objectivists trying to salvage the word "selfishness" as a virtue with their unusual definition, trying in vain to fight the cultural current that selfishness = harmful greed. I think that one is a doomed battle and a silly hill to die on. A bit cult-y, too.

On the other hand, words have meaning, and they will and already do come for the word "markets", and you end up on a treadmill of words for them to redefine. I remember (and attached) a ridiculous TIME Magazine cover. If you cede word after word, the orwellians win. It's the problem of accepting their framing in order to debate them, and thus inevitably losing, as their argument is built into their framing, and they'll keep reframing it further and further, because that's where you cede.

It reminds me of a Michael Malice thing where he describes that they make the topic of the debate "Which sex position should I do with your wife?", where the correct answer is not to debate on those terms (definitions).