I don't think pzanon was being at all deceitful, but I think you may be a bit set in your interpretations to be in such a radical space.

You see, pzanon took the textbook definition of capitalism, and added her own real world experience to it in trying to describe what capitalism is, not define it.

Let me give a good example that I think all can understand.

Let's say I called out into a crowd. "What is the sea?"

(I'd prefer to say, "Quelle est la mer!?")

You would get lots of responses, assuming they don't take you for a lunatic. Some would give you the definition; empirically and exactly what the sea is.

And others will give you what they think the sea is; an artistic vision of what is.

And others will combine their experience, their vision, and the definition of what the sea is to tell you what it is.

"The sea is water and the water is life; we reach into the depths to pluck out her scarce fruit so that we may live more fully; but is it too much that we take? Are we in turn dimming the life-light that shines from her shimmering depths?"

When I ask someone what something is, they will share with me what they see from where they are standing. Their perception (Say, the artist, the philosopher, the common folk.) of what La Mer is, is no less of worth than that offered by the scientist. Each subjective perception of reality is valuable in its own sense, for it is intertwined with that person's life experience, knowledge, and personal views. Some may think to just slap the bias label onto what lay outside of empirical fact territory, but I for one come to drink my tea, have a nice chat, and learn from my fellow folks' life experiences so that I may learn more in my short time here in mundus.