Assumes "capitalism" is a state rather than a direction. Capitalism, left to its own devices, becomes feudalism. Piketty said that, Marx said that. Marx, unlike the rest of the world, argues that it must become feudalism; most everyone else argues somewhere between "lots of capitalism" and "some capitalism." I would argue that "crony capitalism" is "lots of capitalism": it's that "capitalism" where "the market" has consolidated wealth into hereditary oligarchs with the ability to warp and bend civic structures to maximize their impunity and ability to accumulate wealth. Ritholtz lists eight examples of things that do not benefit you in the slightest unless you are wikipedia-page wealthy. More than that, he lists eight examples that aren't "stupid rich people tricks" they're cases where public money is being used to enrich private individuals. "Capitalism" by definition should make a level playing field between all capitalists; when the State favors the extraordinarily rich over the ostentatiously rich, the ostentatiously rich get mad and bitch about crony capitalism.
Not in the bit a quoted, and not in general either. Marx argues that capitalism must become socialism, as a synthesis of "but muh risk and innovashun!" and "how come I do all the work and you get all the rewards?" and that feudalism had to become capitalism. Marx might have turned Hegel on his head, but he kept the gist of history being the world figuring itself out and inching towards perfection.
You misunderstand me. Marx, in your words, is arguing as to the evolution of society whereas I'm arguing as to the eventual decomposition of policy. Marx is saying "this is what it has to become" while I'm arguing "this is what it will be if left to its own devices." The typical argument against Marxism/Leninism is that it requires altruism by everyone at every level but more altruism by those with the power to affect more than their own lot in life. The typical argument against capitalism is it rewards a lack of altruism.