Historical use is not the same as modern use.

Liberalism does not support capitalism.

It does not have any distinctive pro- or anti- economic style.

It primarily concerns itself with society and rights.

Please read the modern definition.

It's possible people claiming to be liberals are also in support of capitalism. They can also be in support of socialism. The definition of the term does not dictate this distinction.

You have to be careful with such terms. They are often applied to groups in errors. Intentionally to sway public perception.

Like Russia calling itself communist. It's not.
Like Hitler's Germany calling itself socialist. It wasn't.

Like "citizens United" actually being a bill to allow companies to fuck over civilians by legally bribing politicians.

Surely you have noticed words are used to obfuscate actual agendas all the time. ?

Your example only further shows this.

The points you list say nothing of anti-capitalism because they have never been anti-capitalist. Ever.

Doesn't need to: it's not for or against it. It's simply an independent concept: liberalism is a political & moral philosophy, not an economic one.

Socialism can be liberal, and it's probably far superior to the mental disease that is authoritarian socialism. There's even libertarian marxism.

Liberalism in its many forms is the dominant ideology of the Western bourgeoisie and has been used time and time again to defend capitalism from radical change for two centuries now.

Biased, inaccurate definition of liberalism: definist fallacy. Try again.

I suggest reading some Marx over Google.

Irrelevant authority fallacy: Marx is not an authority on liberalism. Try a proper definition.