You seem to be similar to naive communists, who, in the face of communism turning totalitarian, tried to "save" the idea of planned economy (for instance) by claiming that totality isn't what they wanted. Ignoring the fact that the totality was put up to prevent bad behavior of people and companies, to which the planned economy led to.
Similarly, here you complain about natural consequences of laissez-faire capitalism, without admitting that the latter is the cause.
I am not saying that good ideas in capitalism (or communism) are unsalvageable. But then you need to detail the mechanism of how to prevent the natural course of action (empirically observed) to take place.
(My personal preference would be to replace free market for labor with worker democracy, while leaving most other things up to free market. Although such a system could hardly be called capitalism anymore.)
Perhaps. But just because it's called that doesn't mean it is that. In fact, even crony capitalism is kinda a joke because it's such a perversion it's not even close to capitalism. Manipulation is the antithesis of free markets. Along the same lines, bails outs by defintion don't mean capitalism is a more successful paradigm. That just doesn't make sense.
My favorite way to reframe shameless newspeak is this: If your pet barked, would you still call it a cat? Of course not? So when there isn't a free market for miles, that's not capitalism.
My fav thing would be to see more co-ops. There's no reason why the more workers can't own a piece of the action.