I see a couple paths to explore, though how do you believe I might best strengthen and extend this critique of capitalism and capital interests? I also hoped to passively emphasize democratic and socialized decision making as countering forces where possible.
Control by the wealthy is not necessary for a robust sustainable economy to function, grow, improve, and respond to unpredictable dynamic circumstances. Capitalism, beyond whatever else may be said about it, is also an imposed condition and perception; balancing matters of belief, finance, and authority as legitimizing forces by which concentrations of power and influence are defended.
If the institutional justifications and cultivated perspective surrounding narrow private economic means disappeared tomorrow; the planet, all its resources, subsequent man-made creations, as well as all its skilled knowledgeable committed individuals would remain. Existing material conditions and incentivization persist, regardless of how apocalyptic the markets may look. The striving for and inheritance of labors towards a better future for those who come after us is both a responsibility and birthright of all society. Standing upon these shoulders and structures is a fundamental aspect of our shared humanity. We are stewards in this life more than we are owners.
The nuts, bolts, gears, and levers of commerce are numerous and varied, existing with or without capitalist means. The vast majority of us who do not egotistically deem themselves somehow above most notions of work need not submit ourselves to the myopic, overconfident, and often apathetic desires of those seeking gain through mere ownership to actualize resilient prosperity.
Through a financial framing, a median quality of life may be sustained indefinitely with approximately $3-4 million worth of assets (In the U.S.). Beyond a $10-15 million net worth, financial wealth virtually ceases to provide further access to a greater quality of life or happiness. Individuals of merit and dedication through free association may still lead and champion vast orchestrations of economic activity while their personal wealth consolidation remains well below that of a centimillionaire.
However the vast majority of people care much more for the economic accessibility such finance appears to enable rather than the underlying optionality itself. Healthy, happy, meaningful, fulfilling, and adventurous lives for self, family, and friends. These are as mentioned above ultimately reliant on resource, infrastructure, labor, and communal conditions. Economic codependency and cooperation rather than private means, is the complex vehicle through which gainful lives are actualized and sustained. The underlying goods are collective, thus optimizing for collective provision rather than private accumulation is the more direct path to a fulfillment of needs and wants.
That material conditions for many have improved over recent generations is not disputed. What is disputed is the attribution. The most dramatic poverty reductions of the modern era occurred largely in economies characterized by substantial state direction, managed trade, and deliberate industrial policy. This is hardly the open market capitalist adherents typically champion. More importantly, conflating the alleviation of the most extreme deprivation with the vindication of a system is a low standard of defense. Billions lifted marginally above subsistence, while the distance between that floor and genuine flourishing widens, is not a triumph to rest comfortably upon. Progress in spite of a system's contradictions is not the same as progress because of them.
To assign the state as the root cause of inflation, housing costs, and economic precarity while exempting concentrated private interest is to mistake the instrument for the hand that wields it. The state does not act in a vacuum of its own autonomous malice. Regulatory frameworks, monetary policy, and zoning law are shaped continuously by those with the greatest resources and incentive to shape them. When financial institutions effectively author the conditions of their own oversight and property holders mobilize political will to constrain housing supply in defense of asset values etc, the resulting harms are not simply governmental failures but rather predictable returns on private investment in public authority. The critique of state overreach, selectively applied, tends to land precisely where concentrated wealth prefers it.
Unfortunately, in any given population approximately 4% of people are functionally and consequentially antisocial in their actions and interests. Furthermore, the high-functioning among this subset are credibly understood to be over represented among high risk/reward business positions and seats of power by as much as 500%. Meaning it is quite plausible 15-25% of vital economic and governing activity is overseen or heavily influenced by those having little to no conscience at all.
Theirs is a selfish narrow-minded lust for power, influence, and aggrandizement; regardless of any harm their actions cause others. Empathy, remorse, concern for externalities; these aren't even of passing concern to such individuals as they strive for personal gain. They tend to have virtually no intrinsic moral constraint on the competitive tactics deemed acceptable. This affords them an asymmetric strategic and operational advantage across the economic landscape. Over time, these individuals and compound behaviors come to dominate and set the competitive floor across a multitude of industries; meaning even well-intentioned capitalists are forced to engage in at least some degree of antisocial behavior to simply remain relevant and solvent.
Circling back,
The only defense a capitalist system has from its calculated abandonment by well organized labor is either subversive derailment/co-optation or proactive aggression. While the first slowly loses effectiveness over time, the second shows the system for what it is and always was, violence.
Additionally,
Capitalist concessions in the face of well organized labor to avoid its abandonment is ultimately phased obsolescence. What is once granted is not so easily rescinded. After repeated concessions over time, the last remaining defense capitalism has is a deliberate economic breaking and attempted reconsolidation amidst the chaos which ensues. Also revealing its violence.
Furthermore,
If instead capital chooses to extricate due to the demands of organized labor, this is abdication. The subsequent migration inevitably creates multi-order negative economic externalities in its wake. Again, revealing the systemic violence.
Labor free of capital interest remains capable of much, while capital free of labor potential is incapable of most everything.