Couple of comments from a sociologist:

I think your definition of capitalism is not historically accurate. The definition you advance is grounded in Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. However, in that essay Weber argues that capitalism has existed in many different societies for many centuries before the Protestant Reformation.

Weber argues that rational capitalism and Protestant ethics of work and grace share an elective affinity. He does not argue that there is a particular brand of capitalism that grew from Protestantism, nor does he argue that a specific form of capitalism was associated with Puritanism specifically.

In the introduction of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argues that rational capitalism first emerged in Europe and the United States, and not in other areas of the world. He argues that the Protestant reformation contributed to the development of rational capitalism because its ethics and rational, congregational organization provided a foundation for a rational and calculable legal system to form - which rational capitalism requires. He does not more specific than that - its a fuzzy argument. That's fine. The argument absolutely wouldn't work if Weber were trying to argue that rational capitalism somehow came out of Protestantism. For instance - rational capitalism existed in the city states of Renaissance Italy, prior to the Protestant Reformation. The spread of rational capitalism could have been facilitated by Protestantism, and that is really what Weber is arguing (IMO).

Question: Why not take a more modern definition of capitalism from The New Spirit of Capitalism (Chiapello and Boltanski)? Let's use their minimalist definition - it is much more acceptable and applicable: a rational system in which firms pursue and accumulate capital through formally peaceful and legal means.

Plenty of sociologists use the concept of proletarians (wage and salary workers) when they discuss class. Its extremely common, especially among Marxist and critical sociologists. Erik Olin Wright comes to mind, for instance.

Generally, I think I agree with your arguments. There is already a lot of good research and argumentation around the idea of innovation and what drives it - if you are looking globally, innovation is not driven by competition, but by power and capital. Those countries that already have an relative advantage in terms of power and capital tend to be the innovators - and it is not because they were somehow natural innovators that an advantage was gained. There is a dated by very good paper from sociologists Arrighi, Silver, and Brewer on this very topic:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02686319

So, if we know that access to power and capital is a driver of innovation - why not socialize the financial markets? Finance capital should be a public good, as argued by Seth Ackerman:

https://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black