Will they? I think they are more like adults promising sweets for breakfast to children if they behave (vote). Not really in their interest if you think about it.
The supporters are the PACs and special interest lobbying groups exchanging funding for political achievements.
Voters are just the marginalized workers whose favor needs to be curried every so often to keep critical analysis of our sociopolitical economic reality in check.
It is an ideology that is used to solidify and concentrate power.
"Free trade agreements" that actually lower trade interaction and increase the foothold of multinational corporations in foreign countries to outsource work and avoid taxation.
"Competition" for the workers, while large corporations get massive tax cuts, bailouts and lobby for regulations that benefit them and are a burden for SMBs.
"Market innovation" that is largely superficial and stands of the shoulders of giants, researchers who are paid by the taxpayer.
(I'm being hostile and uncharitable here to get a point across and give some counterweight to the status quo.)
We are all in a capitalist system. Capitalism doesn't mean free markets, it has a much wider definition than that, and doesn't require free markets.
I read it as, "why talk about pure capitalism when we're not even in capitalism?" I've seen far more conflation of the two by commenters on HN than not, so maybe that's clouding my reading.
Of course pure capitalism is not realistic nor desirable in practice.
No one is in a capitalist system. Democracies ensure that - politicians will act to ensure the interest of their supporters.
As a result there will always be tariffs, subsidies or tax breaks to support different types of commercial work.
Is it just a rhetorical tool? Some times it reads as if people are actually arguing based on a pure capitalist model and it’s confusing.