> It is important to disguise between: 1. capitalism as a form of free market. 2. capitalism as a form of corporatism. We can argue that 1 has never being tried any where. As markets are never really free currently.
This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are plenty of markets that look a lot more like 1 than 2. You can have 1 with regulations. A free market is about who's allowed to trade with whom, e.g. can I buy a car from Japan without the government adding something to the price tag (a tariff; in addition to the tax also added to the price tag)?
You can say in the extreme that regulations are not free market, or at least how they are currently implemented. Possibly state-funded bodies could generate safety logos instead of regulations, and people could check for the logo for their product, and shops could only sell with that logo, and it might work similarly, but without regulations, but instead by consumer choice. I don't see a lot of practical difference, though.
Regulations are often (or should be, in a decent capitalist system) about enforcing minimums for fair competition. So a bank has to offer so much insurance on balances. A toy company has to make sure it doesn't use cheaper toxic materials. And companies can compete within that framework. That's still pretty free trade, and definitely a capitalist system.
Types of corporatism are too broad a church to discuss, unless you specify which type you mean. But they are often nothing to do with capitalism.