capitalism: magic word

Supporting Cakmak's point, here is a quotation from:

TRANSITIONAL IDEOLOGICAL MODES : FEUDALISM, CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM by Andre
Gunder Frank (available on AGF web site)

[start quotation, the opening section of the article:]
INTRODUCTION TO TRANSITIONS AND MODES IN THE WORLD SYSTEM 
The present "transition from socialism to
capitalism" and the possible future "shift of hegemony from the United
States to Japan" are occasion to re-examine several scientific tenents of
our politics and political tenents of our social science. Among these are
1) the "transition from feudalism to capitalism," 2) the "transition from
capitalisnm to socialism," 3) the process of "transition" itself, 4) the
notion of feudal, capitalist and socialist "modes of production," and 5)
and the hegemonic rise and decline of Europe and the West in the modern
world capitalist system. The question arises whether any or all of the
above are based on scientific analytical categories, or whether they are
only derived from fond ideological beliefs. Perhaps both contemporary
political reality and available historical evidence should now lead us to
abandon some or even all of these positions. My tentative conclusion will
be that ideological blinkers - or worse, mindset - have too long prevented
us from seeing that the world political economic system long predated the
rise of capitalism in Europe and its hegemony in the world. The rise of
Europe represented a hegemonic shift from East to West within a
pre-existing system. If there was any transition then, it was this
hegemonic shift within the system rather than the formation of a new
system. We are again in one of the alternating periods of hegemony and
rivalry in the world system now, which portends a renewed westward shift of
hegemony across the Pacific. To identify the system with its dominant mode
of production is a mistake. There was no transition from feudalism to
capitalism as such. Nor was there (to be) an analogous transition from
capitalism to socialism. If these analytical categories of "modes of
production" prevent us from seeing the real world political economic
system, it would be better to abandon them altogether. These categories of
"transition" and "modes" are not essential or even useful tools, but rather
obstacles to the scientific study of the underlying continuity and
essential properties of the world system in the past. They also shackle our
political struggle and ability to confront and manage the development of
this same system in the present and future.
[end quotation]