Though most Americans would say that they are and believe that they are Capitalists, are they really? I certainly don't think so, in fact, I think we are being manipulated into poverty due to the aspirations and obfuscations of Free Market Capitalists. For the simple answer to this piece's question, let's look at the definition of Capitalist:

cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ist ~ noun

1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.

2. an advocate of capitalism.

3. a very wealthy person.

If you are an American, you probably fit the second definition, but not the first or third.

Let's look at this concept closer then, to see if it really fits most Americans.

1. "A very wealthy person" likely has "capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises." and are likely "an advocate of capitalism." I consider "a very wealthy person" to be at least a multi-millionaire (after all, a million bucks ain't what it used to be). These people are very obviously Capitalists.
   

2. "A person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises," may not necessarily be "a very wealthy person," but are likely "an advocate of capitalism." I would consider "extensive capital" to be at least 50% of total worth. These people are also obviously Capitalists.
   

3. "An advocate of capitalism" may be dirt poor, have no real capital themselves, and, in fact, work for a government, directly contribute to Society and receive their livelihood from such (which is a definition of Socialism).

Does supporting the idea of Capitalism while only meeting one-third the "requirements" of group qualify you for "membership"?

From WikiPedia:

Capitalism is the economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor. However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree, capitalism might differentiate itself by the pervasiveness of wage labor in the interdependent social class context of nonlabor income derived from property not intended for the owner's (or employer's) active personal use.

Boy that Wikipedia sure uses big words and a lot jargon, huh? But, like all of life's tasks, in order for our simple brains to understand what is going on, we need to (and can) break it down:

All economic systems are designed to produce wealth, not just Capitalism.

Capitalism is controlled by private (as compared to public) entities and individuals.

Capital is traded and invested in a market; labor is paid in wages. wages reduce profit from Capital.

Capitalism is not unique in the above factors, but is unique in that wage labor is the predominant income among classes that do not own Capital, while non-labor income is derived from property that is not used by the owner of said property for any reason other than the accumulation of wealth. Those with Capital are also dependent on those who only receive wages in order to achieve greater accumulation. Those who trade their labor for money are dependent upon those wages for assets and consumables necessary for survival, and not simply for accumulation of wealth.

If you still aren't sure if you are a Capitalist, then let's look at the economic system of capitalism is, and whether or not you, yes, you personally, not only can, but will benefit from it.

Capitalism comes from word Capital, which can be defined as:

1. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

2. an accumulated stock of such wealth.

3. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.

4. Accounting.

a. assets remaining after deduction of liabilities; the net worth of a business.

b. the ownership interest in a business.

~Dictionary.com

Labor is not Capital. If you earn most of your money laboring for someone else, you probably don't have any real Capital. Neither Money nor Property are Capital, unless used to generate wealth. The money in your checking and savings accounts is not Capital. Your retirement plan (401k, etc) isn't really Capital either. While it is technically capital while it is invested, once you begin to draw it, unless you are reinvesting those funds, they will no longer be Capital. Your home is wealth, but not Capital. A rental house is Capital, a homestead is not.

Now that we know what Capital is and is not, let's look at the definition of, and commentary on Capitalism itself:

cap·i·tal·ism:

n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

~The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Do you own a means of production or distribution? Do you have ownership in a corporation that does?

Do you invest your earnings to accumulate wealth and reinvest these accumulations to create additional wealth?

Investopedia offers the following commentary on the subject:
In such a system [capitalism], individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control.

Do you sell your labor for wages? If so, you are a product, not a Capitalist. In fact, by doing so, you are literally being bought and sold in the Capitalist system.

If you own no wealth-producing apparatuses, can you really be considered a Capitalist? Yes, remember that if you support the theory of Capitalism, you are a Capitalist...Even if you don't actually have any Capital yourself.

There are only Free Market Capitalists and Socialists/Communists, right?

No, as stated in the Wikipedia article, other economic systems exist. Also, it must be noted that, just as Socialism is not Communism, all Capitalists are not Free Market Capitalists.

The basic concepts of Free Market Capitalism, in fact, stem from Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (1776) in which he borrowed heavily on Physiocratic economic theory, but rejected their idea that only agricultural production generated a clear surplus over cost, ergo, agriculture was the basis of all wealth. The late 1700's were a time of great social unrest and perhaps because of this, the philosophers of the day focused more on what should be, as opposed to what was. The works of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and a host of others sought to bring forth Utopian ideals of Liberty, fairness, self-direction, etc.

True to the works of the times, "Wealth" was a book of Utopian ideals, as they relate to economics. He wrote that an ideal economy would be a self-regulating market system that automatically satisfies the economic needs of the populace. Few people would deny that this would be ideal. He theorized that a market mechanism--an "invisible hand"--leads all individuals, while in pursuit of their own self-interests, to produce the greatest benefit for society as a whole. Here's where he goes off the reservation, as it were. this analogy states that competitive markets, which are completely driven by self-interests, would automatically advance broader social interests, through some unseen, and apparently, all-powerful "force".

The works of Smith and others gave rise to the classical economic theory, or Political Economics. it purported that the Free Market was the most efficient method insofar as the allocation of resources and distribution of income and that a free market economy would also produce full employment.

Smith and his proponents developed Value Theory, that the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" and that this would be influenced by its scarcity and other factors. Other classical economists eventually used Smith's work to form the 'labour theory of value'. Political economics believed in the tendency of markets to move to long-run equilibrium.

John Stuart Mills argued that while the market might be efficient in allocating resources, the mechanism by which it was driven, namely self-interest, would preclude equitable distribution of income, making it necessary for society (through government) to intervene.

Mills and others saw the Free Market theories for what they could do, and rejected them. They understood that in a perfect world, the Utopian dream promised by the Free Market would lead to incredible achievement throughout all levels of society. They also realized that we do not live a perfect world. That Free Market Capitalism would divide an economy into two classes. Land owners and other Capitalists, who owned the economic and agricultural means of production...and everyone else. This would be the "haves" and "have-nots" often referred to on the TV.

Which are you?

The Anarchy of Free Market Capitalism.

When I was in school my teachers taught me about Laissez-faire Capitalism (another name for Free Market Capitalism). They also taught me why it did not work. It's not so much a method of running an economy, but an abdication of economic responsibility through a lack of governance.