Did capitalism have an effect in the creation of absolutism?

I am asking about the effect that various companies and the access to trade and resources, had in helping the monarchs of Europe in the 17th century in centralizing the states.

does not mean

Did capitalism have an effect in the creation of absolutism?

Capitalism can be best described as an economic system built around private ownership of means of production that is not limited to specific political classes and free markets as means of distribution. The system first emerges in 18th century.

Absolutism is a system of government where all aspects of political power - legislative, executive and judiciary - are vested in the monarch. The period where this system first emerges is 17th century.

I think that answers your question.

Centralization of state structures has very little to do with it trade on its own and if you are looking for examples you should start with Louis XIV as there you will have the best example of deliberate and politically well conceived centralization. Also if you think that companies such as the colonial enterprises have absolutely anything to do with what you might call "capitalism" you are gravely mistaken. "Capitalism" does not mean "big business". They are government monopolies on specific trade (think medieval guild and noble privileges) and/or feudal-like grant of control and government over an area.

If you are asking whether new sources of revenue had anything to do with centralization then you are more correct. A great counter-example to the successful centralization in France is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the King was so deprived of power and revenue to the advantage of most powerful noble houses (including elective monarchy!) that the state collapsed by the end of 18th century. However it is incorrect to assume that any specific economic system played a role here. It is more correct to say that trade or new emerging markets provided revenue, or that new inventions such as emerging financial markets (see the establishment of national banks in England and Sweden by the end of 17th century) greatly aided the centralization efforts. That being said it is only a tool to better facilitate a process that is almost entirely political and has nothing to do with actual capitalism which properly takes shape only in 19th century and in the 18th existed in very few places, mostly limited to main cities and in a simplified form.

If anything you could make the claim that it was absolutism which aided the creation of capitalism in many countries where strong feudal system would make it difficult for the necessary institutions to emerge. Capitalism rests on market forces and remains in opposition to economic processes managed politically (like in feudalism or socialism) so a singular seat of political power means a single obstacle, while a system of distributed but strong political power makes it very difficult for capitalism to flourish. It also requires something more than well established traditional agriculture and trade which is exactly what makes feudal systems strong providing a degree of self-sufficiency for the nobility and dependence for the peasantry. This is why capitalism first emerged in modern form in Britain where the feudal system was much weaker than in continental Europe and the industrial revolution drew people to the cities during the period where capitalism could properly structure itself for the first time. If you look at countries such as France, Spain, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania or Russia and compare their economic demography and geography you will see why they lagged behind.

So to sum things up - new sources of revenue independent of the feudal system were an advantage for a monarch attempting to wrestle out control from the nobility, however the centralization process was mostly political. Creation of capitalism had nothing to do with the creation of absolutism, instead the creation of absolutism made it easier for capitalism to emerge since it shifted the balance of power between feudal nobility and capitalist bourgeoisie.

EDIT: incorrect quotation