"Capitalist" is used in different contexts to meet definitions of the exact opposite criteria. Where is the contradiction? Let's break down the definition provided compliments of Google and see what we find. Per Google, a capitalist is "a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism" (here siting Google). In one sense, it is correct, common sense dictates a capitalist must be a proponent a capitalism. Moreso, the capitalist must "invest and trade in industry for profit". But must the capitalist be "wealthy" and "use money" for this purpose? If so, Rand would not have been considered a capitalist. She would have been considered an "advocate of capitalism". I too would be considered an "advocate of capitalism". I do not have the wealth of J P Morgan, or Andrew Carnegie, or Steven A Cohen, or Elon Musk. Relative to them, I have much less wealth, or - at least - capital with which to practice capitalism. So it would seem. But, if I advocate individual rights, then logic dictates I advocate the right to life, from which follows the right to keep what I produce. Of course, we cannot imagine that a self respecting capitalist would not also agree with such tenets, whether implicitly or explicitly. But all of us now who have 401 plans use our money to invest. And it's no small "chunk of change", I imagine.

Thus, if I am tied to the "Google standard" definition, it must be that I am not wealthy by some standard, and that that standard renders me separate from those giants who would be titled as such. This is a double-edged sword. Each person of greater wealth imagines the true capitalist is much greater than he, or - in the case of our current and ridiculous culture - much less (i.e. an Occupier's feeling about the world). Continuing on: each person who puts money to use to accrue capital, would be a capitalist. Thus anyone with a 401k is a capitalist. From that standard then, each person who DOESN'T, simply isn't a capitalist. That is the divide Marx set out to propose in his book Capital. Of course, basic subsistence is a lamentable state. But even a person who by definition spends his earnings daily (i.e. the proletariat) has the power to accrue property for that exact length of time. He can, for example, go without meat in order to save for coat. He can, for example, go without a smart phone payment in order to save for a car. He can, for example, go without a formal education to work on his fortune, and to invest his capital accordingly. So what of Marx's claim, or Google's definition of wealth?

Is wealth possible to those who have nothing? Yes, it is 100% possible. Is wealth possible to those who do not receive free education, free food, free water, or free wages (minimum wage)? Of course, per the previous answer. Wealth is not a given to any individual, who must use his mind to produce. We are not in an oligarchical hell that Bernie Sanders describes.

Productive minds (i.e. capitalists) use money as a tool to translate the image of their values into the physical world. That is a better definition of "capitalist" than Google's, in my humblest opinion. Then, anyone might ask, how is it that our incomes are taxed, that our streets are crumbling, that buildings are closed, that stock markets crash so profoundly? Are we the victims of market stagnation, where capital doesn't move and the life force of the economy runs dry?

Who is John Galt?