I disagree. We (sort-of) have your a) and b) and capitalism now but the implication part "what you get" is not obvious.
Do you have sources that show a consensus on this implication ?
> Capitalism really is an evolution ("what you get when ...")
"is an evolution" is not the same as "what you get when", I agree that the current system is an evolution of the 17th century, but "what you get when" would mean this is the most likely evolution, which is not obvious.
If you give people property and trade they will trade in the hopes of growing their property. So it might be part of the official definition or not, it's what will happen every time you start a system with these rules.
> we're very far away from [needing, wanting, or being able to afford growth]
Far away from wanting? agreed. Far away from being able to afford faking it? I think you are not watching politics, but the risk level of reaching that end are increasing yearly.
> They deny the premise that capitalism is just freedom. But... where is the force being applied (by whom and to whom) to make capitalism
You just mentioned two rules. private property and freedom to trade. These must be enforced by law, police and military if necessary.
If you don't enforce property rights people will grab whatever they can carry. You wouldn't like that friends visiting your home for a football match and one leaving with the tv and another leaving with the couch (and another leaving with your girlfriend).
Being born in a socialist country I can tell you that the average person in such a country doesn't feel a force applied to them either. The same way you feel that capitalism is "just the way things are" such person would feel socialism is "just the way things are". The problem is that both sides have a distorted view about the other side.
For instance when I hear the word capitalism I don't think "freedom to do what I would naturally do", I think "strongre people making weaker people's life harder, monopolies, exploiting and lying to each other". When I hear the word "socialism" I think "helping each other, giving up a few unhealthy personal desires to give everybody an equal chance". The same way you feel police stopping people from stealing being a naturally good thing I feel police stopping people from their greed and selfishness being a good and natural thing. Someone who hurts the community by putting himself first needs to be punished. That's very natural thinking to me and nobody needs to force me to think that way.
Less sarcastically and more substantively: there's no such thing as orthodox capitalism requiring growth or any such thing.
Capitalism is what you get when a) you have private property, b) freedom to trade property, goods, and services (labor). Everything you associate with capitalism is either a consequence of this or of not-capitalism market distortions (which we often fail to recognize as such, and then we associate them with capitalism).
Growth will stop when people stop needing, wanting, or being able to afford growth. Clearly, we're very far away from that: clearly people worldwide want the standard of living we have in the U.S., but the world is far from being there. So we have some growth left. Clearly, too, there is a limit to demand for growth, and we see this reflected in fertility rates the world over.
If you're aching to put an end to growth then I counsel patience: we're on our way.
Back to what is capitalism... I talked with an economist friend once who told me that "we need to develop an alternative to capitalism". My answer was: "well, given that capitalism is what you get when you let people be free to own and trade, what freedoms do you propose to deny people?!". Oddly my friend did not challenge the premise of my question (see below)... Instead he admitted that he hadn't thought of it that way. Sadly we never discussed it again.
Many here at HN (and elsewhere) don't see capitalism this way. They deny the premise that capitalism is just freedom. But... where is the force being applied (by whom and to whom) to make capitalism what it is, if capitalism isn't freedom?? (I'm not referring to regulations here, or laws against crime for that matter. Socialist countries, for example, apply lots of force or threats of force to get people to do what is expected of them -- this is what I'm referring to.)