I take your point but the adoption of "Capitalism" as a term to explain the evolving socio/economic structures arising from the Industrial Revolution in that it aptly qualifies the new order is useful, IMO , regardless of the bias of the coiner.
In the transition from Lord of the Manor/Serf feudal structure , the new class of capitalists evolved where the ownership of the factory & machinery (the means of production) replaced the ownership of the land and infrastructure therein.
It is rather ironic that John Locke concocted the notion of freehold property that could be granted to colonists principally in the Americas based on the worker's labour input into the land (this is why we have freehold of land only extending to the soil & not the subsoil such as minerals water etc., nowadays)
Of course the same principle did not apply to the newly evolving factories where workers did bot gain equity in the products of their labour (such as those who tilled the land did) in the products they produced but instead an employee (user) wage.
The principle of Workers Co-Ops is based on that, IMO. Jermy Corbyn hinted at that when he said that a future UK Labour Government would support Workers Co-Ops to take over post Brexit failed enterprises. This is fundamentally different to the failed Leyland Management buy out of the 1970s, IMO.
We have some Aussie Co-Ops but not in the true manner of the original Marxist notion where its owned by the workers rather than an extended membership.
