Alotta words there breh. Put it simply for everyone. Going by the definition, what problem do you have with capitalism? You have a problem with private owners being in control of industry and trade? If so then WHO should be in control?
You play 2k the Basketball game? In it it has sliders to where you can make one side hit all the shots. Make on side faster then the other. Stronger. Make it to where one side commits no fouls and the other commits all the fouls. The other side is slower. Weaker. Misses every shot they take. That’s all they did with capitalism. They rigged it in their favor. But by definition? There’s nothing wrong with it. If there is, explain by picking at the definition.
My problem with capitalism is that, as practiced today, it is failing to create shared prosperity, leading to the unraveling of society and interpersonal connections, and actively leading to the earth being uninhabitable for humankind. Is that simple enough?
Private industry should be in control in some aspects of trade and production, but not in others. Capitalism is a means to an end: SHARED prosperity, not just prosperity, and where it fails at this objective, government should step in. Case in point, health care and child care are places where government should play more of a role. Your approach of "who controls industry and trade" is way too simple of a question.
For example, I don't think the government should wield negotiating power for something like hair loss pills to drive down their prices, but I do think it should be throwing its weight around for something like insulin. Does that make me a capitalist? Socialist? Communist?
If we're picking up on the slider analogy, a capitalism slider that's closer to socialism than corporatism would do way better in creating SHARED prosperity for people. Look at the Nordic countries (socialist countries that have better outcomes in health and happiness for its people). People say "we can't have what they have", but the only legit reason is racism. Not the size of the US or any of that other bullshyt that gets spit out.
At the very least, we need socialism where profit motives are in contrast with people's ability to, idk, not die or go completely bankrupt due to a temporary lapse in employment. Or to not have to have a herculean effort to turn your family's socioeconomic status around ("Find a way to work 3 jobs and not have your kid fall behind with school or become a drug dealer trying to support you - just believe in yourself!!!").
None of the benefits of capitalism that most human on this planet enjoy can actually enjoy get destroyed by having medicare for all, a single bloc negotiatior for drugs you need to stay alive, etc. We're literally talking about adjustments that would have some billionaires only able to make 20 generations of their family millionaires instead of 30, lead to smaller yachts, less private space flights, etc.