Let us define our terms, please. Like seriously, I really want you to tell me, in a few concise words, what your (and that of the poster above you) definition of capitalism is in order to be able to make a statement like

But then the government is also threatening to take private land without compensation. Seems like they are shooting for the worst of both worlds. Hyper capitalism while also scaring away foreign investment.

Because without that information, your comments just seem very outlandish to me.

Anyway, the word capitalism as defined academically is "private ownership of the means of production" - nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing about the intentions, ambitions, or behaviors of the people who live or succeed under such a system, the definition is literally only "private ownership of the means of production". Socialism and Communism could also have private ownership, just not of the means of production - that is, productive property such as factories, arable land, etc.

Ownership in this instance means full, complete control that can not be transferred without consent (except as a proportionate compensation for violating property that has another owner).

Communism means full public ownership of the means of production. Like with capitalism, there can not be an unconsented transfer of control (ownership) in a communist society (disregarding the transition to communism from another system), since it is clearly defined who is the owner of the means of production in that society, and only transfers that have the owner's consent are legitimate.

The difference between private and public ownership is therefore irrelevant to the question of taking land without consent. On one hand, you're committing a crime against an individual or a static set of individuals, on the other, you're committing a crime against "society" or "the public", but either way, it is a crime and it is not compatible with either system.

The problem is with socialism, which claims to be neither capitalism nor communism, and does not clearly define who the means of production are owned by. In fact, under socialism, there is no true ownership at all, since we defined ownership as full control. Socialism is typically a system where private actors have some control over the means of production, but the public also has some control, and how these proportions are distributed is not objective, it can change over time and since there is no true established ownership, both private and public actors end up claiming different proportions. Only under this system can the government take control of previously private land, make it public or assign it a different private user.

The existence of obligatory (as opposed to, for instance, self-imposed) regulations is also an example of socialism by the way - they can not exist under capitalism or communism. But I'm not here to make an argument for or against any of the three systems exposed above, simply to give some definitions with which you can engage in a much more constructive kind of argumentation - it is impossible to debate people who are using different definitions than you; you might even agree with someone, yet never find a conclusion to your discussions simply because you're using different definitions.

Some might object to my definition of socialism and communism. That's fine, I'll admit that I might not use the most common definitions for them. But the definition of capitalism that I gave (and the contrasts that I made with non-capitalistic systems) is absolutely the textbook definition.

But if you want to use a different definition, that is fine. Just be aware that it is not the academically accepted definition, and therefore, if you want a constructive conversation define your terms. If I'm talking to you and you've defined your terms appropriately, I will be happy to continue using your definition for the purpose of that conversation, even if I don't personally use the same definition.

Every time someone uses the term "crony capitalism" without first explaining their heterodox definition of capitalism, a newborn puppy has a brain aneurysm.