I would argue that is a better semantic dispute, but still forced. You can interpret things as political capital, technological capital, or even militaristic capital.... But it becomes a little over done pretty quickly. There are better and more accurate ways to describe these claims than to claim everything is capital.

Semantics do not create meaning, they describe it, poorly in most cases as vernacular evolves.

Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.

Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn't changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system.....

Most of the people that worked for William Shockley have been interviewed and recorded, along with their protégés. Bo Lojek of Motorola also wrote History of Semiconductor Engineering (Springer).

Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?

The reason it isn't capitalism with extra steps is that the defining trait of capitalism vs socialism isn't the presence of markets (which long predate capitalism as a distinct concept), but rather who owns what and how that ownership is justified and structured. Now, arguably market socialism is more similar to capitalism than a planned economy is, but capitalism doesn't just mean an unplanned economy either (as those, again, are much more ancient than the term implies).

I don't think the meme implies any particular solution. To be honest, it doesn't really even imply a problem to be solved. To my eyes it just looks like it's just mocking a particular argument used to defend capitalism, without really communicating much beyond a distaste for that argument and presumably with capitalism in general.