In addition to your misuse of "corporatism" as identified by tatterdemalion, you seem to be redefining "capitalism" to mean "what deelowe likes"; capitalism historically -- from the time that name was first given to an economic system by nineteenth century critics of the then-existing system in developed countries -- has always referred to a system which features unfettered accumulation of capital, and it is a system which was formed by cpaital accumulating so much in the hands of a few wealthy influencers outside of the feudal aristocracy despite feudal rules that restricted many kinds of capital flows that the elite of that new capitalist class were able to influence the existing governments to remove the feudal restrictions. The exact thing that you say is "weird" and doesn't seem to be capitalism working as intended is the origin and essence of capitalism, and the thing which motivated its early critics to bother criticizing -- and in the process naming -- capitalism.
You seem to be repeating this idea over and over - that this is what a few people 200 years ago meant when they said "capitalism", and therefore that's what capitalism is. But that is not exactly what most people today mean by the term. Even if you were right 200 years ago, you're wrong today.
Your approach therefore winds up changing the use of the term, to make it more useful for your side of the debate. That's not an especially valid debating tactic...
> You seem to be repeating this idea over and over - that this is what a few people 200 years ago meant when they said "capitalism", and therefore that's what capitalism is.
You have misunderstood. It is not that it is what "capitalism" means because it was what the term was first coined for, its because it was both what the term was first coined for and what it has been used predominantly for since -- both in criticism of that system and other systems sharing its salient features, and in describing (with or without criticisms) actual current systems by how they differ or continue capitalism (both aspects are frequently seen in the descriptions of modern mixed economies.)
The use of "capitalism" for either some other real system that has existed (other than by reference to shared features with the original capitalism) or for some idealized utopian objective that does not exist and has not existed -- whether one in which, as in Marx's Communism, the State has withered away, or one which has a active State with narrowly-circumscribed functions and goals -- is a distinct minority use, and any particular ideal is an even smaller minority use.
For example, you talked about cronyism. You said that it's inherent to capitalism. For authority for that claim, you said (but did not cite) 19th-century critics of capitalism.
I don't believe you that this is inherent to capitalism. Do you have anything this century (21st, not 20th)? An actual citation, not just a claim that this is what they said? Some kind of a study of the degree of cronyism in capitalism, preferably across countries? Something besides just an un-evaluatable claim that depends on the "everybody knows" and the definitions used by unspecified people two centuries ago?
The capitalism that we see today is not qualitatively different from any capitalism that has ever existed. They've all had cronyism, they've all had different rules for different types of firms, and most of them have had banks. Thus, if "capitalism" was a good name for whatever they had back then, it's a good name for what we've got now. This better system of which we're dreaming deserves better marketing than a name so shabby as "capitalism".
