Of course they are. But that is not capitalism. You can't blame the free market for people "furthering their own interests through the means of state power" when the very existence of state power is antithetical to free markets. The "free" in "free market" refers specifically to the absence of legitimized and systematic aggression, of which state power is the foremost example.

This is a completely and utterly ahistorical redefinition together with selective reasoning. The theological fantasy where capitalism is freed from its state component would not differ either with regards to these incentives, the state would just be replaced by "private-property lords" which you'd stamp as legitimate and welcome the voluntary toil of the propertyless masses.

If you're going to use private and/or archaic definitions for common terms, please say so up front so we can avoid wasting our time. The term capitalism in common use today means a political and economic system which favors private ownership of the means of production, with strong implications of "laisse-faire" and "free market" policies. It is not a synonym for plutocracy, the vesting of political power in those possessing wealth. To the extent that owners of capital are effective in turning the power of the state to their own benefit, to intervene in the market on their behalf, what you have is a plutocracy, not capitalism.

Unsurprisingly, you did not address the point I made. The surgical separation of private-property, political power, and plutocracy that you're making is a fantasy in which they're somehow not deeply intertwined and interdependent from start to finish.

Also do yourself a favour and never assume that your US libertarian bubble definition is the de facto standard around the globe. Europe has a long and dark history of the kind of (neo-)feudalism that you're peddling, it's not hard to spot.

Citizens United is one such example.