I do back up that point about precapitalist workers. The link associated with "socialist movements" addresses both points. Here's a quotation from it:

"It is unlikely that 90% of the human population lived in extreme poverty prior to the 19th century. Historically, unskilled urban labourers in all regions tended to have wages high enough to support a family of four above the poverty line by working 250 days or 12 months a year, except during periods of severe social dislocation, such as famines, wars, and institutionalized dispossession – particularly under colonialism."

It's a tricky thing, speaking of "versions" of an economic system. Is a semi-socialist hybrid form of capitalism still just capitalism? The labels aren't important unless they blind us to what's going on.

I agree that ensuring we have skin in the game is a key part of at least the myth of capitalism. In practice, there's all kinds of buck-passing in that system, though. There are plenty of investors who lose money in the stock market or in bankruptcies, but there are also executives who fail upward. Limited liability companies allow us to act sociopathically in the marketplace, with impunity. And capitalism produces monopolies which terminate competition by capturing the regulators with lobbyists, campaign contributions, and so on.

Is a plutocracy that worships money still capitalistic? Or is it neo-feudal and virtually theocratic?

That's a good question, though: Who calls the shots in capitalism? In communism, it's certain self-serving elites, whereas in capitalism it's supposed to be the invisible hand of the market. Prices are set by supply and demand. But if demagogues can corrupt a democracy, couldn't something similar happen in capitalism?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169