In my experiance I find if my position is considered agreeable then I don't qualify as the group you don't like or if you object I don't belong in your group.
If a majority of a country's assets, industries, or bussinesses are owned by nobles/an aristocracy and run for-profit then yeah that fits within the definition of capitalism I already gave. If there's government intervention but only on behalf of the aristocracy than really that just shows how unrestricted capitalism leads to a system in which private owners become in-effect the government. the private owners were (and in many places still are) the government.
The unregulated economy lead to a position in which the government was beholden to private owners. It's a perfect of why laissez-faire doesn't work.Your description meets the definition of capitalism but it doesn't meet the definition of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire specifies a form of capitalism in which regulation is minimized.
I'd also very much question if Tsarist Russia was a situation caused by laissez-faire. As I've heard it, Russia (along with most of the pre-Enlightenment world) ran a "moral economy" which consisted of heavy regulation of prices and production done according to tradition.
There's also some big differences between pure property owners under contract and nobility. For one, the feudal lord's "contract" basically extends to anybody born to his peasants, which is not an actual contract in any sense of a voluntary agreement but more of a "social contract" (ie., bullshit that society makes up to pretend that coercive systems are not coercive).
Your insistence that the Russian state was a product of or example of laissez-faire specifically just feels bizarre. Your definition would basically make anything and everything short of complete public control laissez-faire.
But you haven't provided any evidence their economy was regulated in order to stop monopolization or the privatization of large swathes of industry.But you haven't provided ANY evidence that their economy was UNREGULATED.
But you haven't provided any evidence their economy was regulated in order to stop monopolization or the privatization of large swathes of industry.
unregulated economy -> monopolies form -> monopolies and their private owners gain sway over the government -> the private owners become in effect the government -> they can pass regulation in order to keep their monopolies
That is clearly the fault of having an unregulated economy in the first place.