I suppose it depends on your perspective. I guess I mean broken kind of in the gaming sense, where a gameplay mechanic is 'broken' if you can exploit it to completely subvert the entire intended way it's supposed to work.
You could argue that capitalism was very not broken in 1960, when you could get a job at 18 selling shoes, driving a cab, or delivering milk or whatever, and support a family of five on your salary, save for retirement, and go on yearly vacations.
It's arguably somewhat broken today, when gestures around things are like this.
I'd say it would be entirely broken if AGI means a few hundred billionaires who have ownership stakes in an AI company simply capture all the wealth in the world while most of the rest starve, but the robots help you put down the peasant uprisings and farm and raise crops for you.
I agree with you though that technically, capitalism will still be 'going strong' unless the peasants are able to overpower the AI robot billionaire industrial complex and burn it all down.
It seems non sequitur. This hypothetical scenario sounds like entrenching capitalism, because it would concentrate capital even more.
It would probably weaken democracy and weaken free market (esp. the job market), yes.
> society will collapse before then because of said breaking of capitalism itself
Or, maybe the society would continue to exist with even more inequality? And, of course, much changed from what it is today.