[sudosysgen]

Capitalism is to be understood as a political economy, not as some abstract economic-only concept that is impossible. A political economy is more capitalist in so far as private ownership of capital faces fewer restrictions and insofar as power is correlated to political ownership. Like all political systems, there are practical limits, but a system in which the power of capital is unrestrained and where very few restrictions to capital ownership exist can be called "unhindered capitalism", and these certainly existed.

[MichaelZuo]

So by "unhindered capitalism" you mean “partially-hindered capitalism”?

[sudosysgen]

No, I mean unhindered capitalism, capitalism being a real political economy rather than the impossible to define purely economical conception of capitalism. Capitalism is not just an economic system, it has necessary political implication, such as a strong state, an active police force, a class system, etc...

[MichaelZuo]

Why would you assign 100% of the ‘real political economy’ to capitalism, given the very obvious existence of non-capitalist forces that exist in the ‘real political economy’?

[sudosysgen]

I don't, but it's clear that there were societies where the vast majority of the political power served capital, so from then on you can say that they were unhindered capitalism. Of course, there is always some political power that is not wielded by capitalists, even merely because the state requires a military and capitalism requires the state, but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.

[MichaelZuo]

‘ but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.’

It certainly seems like your assigning 100% of it.

[sudosysgen]

It is inherent to capitalism that not 100% of political power belong to capitalists, yes. That's not equivalent to what you claim I said.