You have what seems to me an incorrect understanding of the issues here. Let me offer my brief summary of them, based on my reading:
Qualcomm: The Broadcom acquisition was essentially an exercise in asset stripping. Qualcomm’s business model involved a long-term development of IP based on experience productionalizing new technology. The merged company would have feasted on existing IP without spending the extra in developing the next generation of IP for G6.
This would clear the field for Chinese competitors (e.g. Huawei) to lead in standards development, reducing the role of the US FCC, which has played an integral part in standards development, as well as military partnerships in technology development. Nothing to do with any “Chinese” aspects of Broadcom.
“Democratic capitalism”: The “capitalism” of the winner of the Cold War (“West”, US/Western Europe) has never been “democratic” in the way even its governments are (or claim to be).
The “free” market is thoroughly distorted by regulators and laws in many ways, and the role of customers in driving business success (within that distorted system) is proportional to their spending, not their voting.
And even the role played by voters is mostly a matter of whose persuasion they listen to, and who they vote for to produce the laws and choose the (top) regulators that control how the market chooses winners and losers.
China: Remains fundamentally Marxist, and its government system is pretty much imperial. While there are autocratic aspects, no autocrat can survive without the support of a large base, which places limits on what an autocrat can do. For instance Caligula and Nero.
“Capitalism” in China is seen as an essential intermediate step in progress to “Marxist Socialism”. (Whether that final step will ever happen is another question, however.)