Every time somebody says "capitalism" in a negative connotation, what they actually mean is "corporate oligarchy" but don't realise it.
It's interesting that you're assuming I'm negative there. The scapegoating is cliche and patronizing. That's like saying "people don't have trouble with monarchy, what they
actually mean is they don't like kings
but are too dense to realize it". Systemic issues existed far downstream of ruling classes. Same for capitalism and other economics. Pure ideals rarely work without tempering them, and it's healthy to note weak points without throwing it all out.
Hunters built a dungeon economy, markets based on farming dungeons. We saw that was a mistake; the markets would still exist without the space mouth tragedy of the commons, likely with more human "Kings". Since your first impulse was to extrapolate that to some negative connation of capitalism in other conditions, and to jump to the tendency to corporate oligarchy, you're pretty critical of capitalism yourself! You're just using too broad or politicized of a definition.