Those people aren't capitalists in the proper definition of the term. Capitalism is voluntarism, which manifests as free markets in practice.
There are two definitions of "capitalist":
(1) A holder of capital,
(2) An adherent to "capitalism", the dominant economic system of the industrialized West in the mid-late 19th Century (which has been diluted by subsequent reforms, but remains a core element of the structure of economy in most of the modern developed world), named "capitalism" by its 19th Century socialist critics for the ways in which it systematically served the interests of capitalists (by the preceding definition.)
The GP post seems to be accurate whether using "capitalist" in sense (1) or sense (2).
"Crony capitalism" is the only kind that has ever existed, and definitely the kind for which the term "capitalism" was coined. The idea of any other kind of "capitalism" is, well, highly implausible. To avoid cronyism, you are going to have to take out the core features that make it capitalism.
> I'd bet that I'd consider some of the "subsequent reforms" you've described as fundamental corruptions of the system.
Thing like establishing labor rights are certainly "corruptions" if you view the 19th Century system initially labelled "capitalism" as pure.
I don't see "corrupting" the purity of capitalism as a problem, though.
> For example, political donations as corporate free speech (Citizens United v FEC) doesn't make much sense in a world where shareholders aren't engaged and active participants in company behavior.
Citizens United is a move back in the direction of a pure 19th Century capitalism, and a reversal of reform efforts aimed at constraining the dominion of the capital-holding class (which is what campaign finance reform efforts that seek to limit the influence of wealth on politics to protect democracy from capitalism are.)
Whether shareholders are personally active or find it most useful to give management free reign is immaterial to this.
> In other words, corporate governance is broken, something that Reich gets right.
What Reich gets wrong is embracing the idea that capitalism is betrayed by the various failures, rather than the source of them. His idea of supporting a "share the gains" capitalism is amusing: "share the gains" is not, and has never been, capitalism (though it's occasionally a lie that capitalists use to justify capitalism, as in "trickle-down" economics.)
I don't think my ISP choice is a result of free market capitalism. It seems an awful lot like collusion against the free market, against competition, locking me down to one ISP depending in which region I happen to live.
The US definitely does not have a free market. I would venture a guess that most of the regulations are actually designed to benefit a select few at the top of some company or investment system.
Which makes sense, since that's exactly what the label "capitalism" was created for.
Lots of people have, however, bought into propaganda that capitalism is something else that was created by capitalists after the criticism in which the system was named.
Blood lines (either real, or "Roman-style" (meaning voluntary adoption)), outright whim or military power (either individual, or organized), or otherwise advancement within a rigid hierarchy.
None of those seem to me even remotely preferable over a system where making money means advancement.
Unless communism/socialism is not what you mean with "continuing to build".
And consequently, in practice, there are no capitalists and no free markets, by the proper definition of the term.
(As in holders of capital and people following the competitive philosophy.)
If you're a car careening down a road. You're going to fast, and an accident is about to happen, but you can, say, either hit a group of male toddlers or a slightly smaller group of female toddlers. How do you choose ?
Your answer is simply "No", and that's just not acceptable. Does that mean anarchism ? You must choose, because the real world needs to exist and the economy must keep working. Without it, we wouldn't be fed, wouldn't be able to move any significant distance, wouldn't be anything.
The problem with the "no" answer is that a this refusal to choose, in the economy, would match in the dilemma with first hitting all the boys, driving back and forth a few times to make sure you've got them all, and then get going on the girls. That's what shutting down the economy would do. One might assume this is not in fact what you intend, so what are you going to do ? What is the superior alternative to capitalism ?