Considering that it is itself a severe truncation of a complex economic theory that effectively neglects the majority of that theory, and considering that you have not demonstrated any misunderstanding of mercantilism except for your own, I think not.
None of the things you list as "anti-capitalist" are so.
Capitalism, in its pure and defined form, is directly opposed to managerial government intervention within the economy. That is a fact of economic definition whether you like it or not. Taking something that is not capitalist and calling it capitalist does not make it so. And since everything I listed as anti-capitalist is an act of managerial government intervention within the economy, they cannot be capitalist by definition.
Taxes certainly aren't.
Excessive taxes that are collected for purposes other than the basic functions of a capitalist state, i.e. defending the shores and keeping the courts open, indisputably are. They are managerial interventions into the economy on two levels: First they remove excessive ammounts of wealth from the private sector so as to distort and divert what that wealth would have been employed to in the absence of excessive taxation. Secondly they are used to finance government expenditures and/or transfer payments that intervene into the economy by their own right.
Nor are tariffs
Revenue tariffs? generally no as long as they are low, reasonable, and not spent on further managerial economic intervention. Protectionist tariffs? Yes. They are anti-capitalist by definition as they directly seek to manage the economy in a different way than would happen in their absence and indirectly manage it by redistributing wealth via the consumer surplus to selected beneficiary producers.
having been used by EVERY capitalist country.
Capitalist-leaning countries do not define a system of economic capitalism and thus are not evidence, in their employment of policy, of what capitalism is. If the opposite were so, capitalism could be said to include a massive welfare state since the US and many european countries that call themselves capitalist by name all have massive welfare states. Not that you would object to such an absurdity...
Certainly centralized monetary policies aren't since they have been and are used by EVERY capitalist country.
Same fallacy as above. Try again.
Clearly internal improvements aren't since they have been used by EVERY capitalist country.
Same fallacy as above. Try again.
Here is a short definition of capitalism which might clear up your confusion
You post without need considering that, once again, short definitions cannot even hope to accomodate the intricacies of an economic theory that consumes volumes of text in even its most simple form and in light of the fact that, once again, the only confusion about capitalism that has been demonstrated on this thread to date originates from your own keyboard.
Hamilton's policies (in sharp contrast to his enemies) were proposed to Maximize those economic activities for his fellow Americans.
He may have claimed that and you may claim it to your heart's content, but that does not make it so. Take protectionist tariffs for example. You or Alex or the AFL-CIO may claim that they "mazimize economic activities for Americans" or some other such nonsense, but regardless of what you may think or believe, it is a mathematical certainty that they do not by way of the inescapable dead weight losses that accompany protectionist policies. In simpler terms for someone of your simple mindset, that means that protectionist tariffs operate at a net loss for the general welfare of a nation when compared to the alternative, free trade.
Now he is a direct "heir" to mercantilists?
Well, he advocated an economic agenda with heavy mercantilist elements. So yes.
You might note in your attempt to slander Hamilton with Keynes you ignore what Keynes actually said while accepting what those who use his name say he said.
Don't tell me - you're a keynesian too! Gee, fake-it. When it comes to idolizing left wing wackos you're batting 1.000!
I doubt you have actually read Keynes great work, The General Theory of employment,interest and money or you would realize that Keynes never proposed the policies that his successors employ in his name.
Evidently you know very little of Keynes yourself, or you would know that he spent much of his lifetime advising governments and advocating the very same policies that his followers still push to this day. Much of that work is descriptive without much controversy.
...and the remainder is the foundation for the very same modern left wing anti-capitalist bullsh*t that people like you endorse, praise, and advocate while simultaneously trying to pass it off as "capitalism" by calling it that.
People like Keynes and Roosevelt were desperate to save the capitalist system which in both their countries were under great pressure from the Socialists and Communists because of the inability to comprehend and deal with the economic collapse.
Nonsense. Roosevelt and Keynes simply sought, and in part achieved, a different means to the same end. Heck, Roosevelt himself threw off the few capitalists and conservatives that could help him and surrounded himself with marxists, socialists, communists, and other left wing freaks of the highest order.