I guess I'm just not a fan of historical reductionism when discussing history, but sure the form has existed in a somewhat loose sense for awhile. The "science" of history is to compare modes of production over time, how each understood economic activity, the relationship between public and private, and the ideological and moral apparatus that justified and sustained economic behavior. Myu point is only that what we understand as late capitalism is not a natural phenomenon or set of relations. I suppose that this a controversial take in these parts.
How did credit work, though?
How were markets maintained?
Were norms and values of exchange and commerce similar then as they were now?
Did private ownership of the means of production - and its relation to citizenship - function in a similar way as they have since the advent of industrial capitalism?
What was the relationship between the public and private sphere then as opposed to now (not to mention in any number of important intermediary historical moments)?
Were global marketplaces functioning similarly as they do in the age of truly global supply chains?
Have conceptions of economic action and economic actors remained consistent over time?
Scholars such as Marx, Smith, Arendt, and Weber, among others, offer a variety of interesting answers to these questions. I don't pretend to know all of the answers. I'm not sure that any of us should, either.