Your usage of "capitalist" is both arbitrary and incorrect; you can't just claim to be using it "differently". Speak to any political theorist and they will tell you the same.
You are conflating (very) rich with capitalist. That is a mistake, and frankly one which many on the left deliberately push in order to convince ordinary citizens invested in the system that the system is stacked against them and that giving yet more power to the state (and the largely privileged types who run said state) will somehow benefit them.
As you have already conceded problems like unfair lobbying, corruption, corporate malfeasance and anti-competitive business practices are not a left-right issue. Just be honest with what your aims are instead of proffering a bullshit argument that peeps running their own businesses earning hundreds of thousands a year are somehow "workers".
Your belief doesn't make it so - and the rejection of said fatuous notion has occurred numerous times across the west. Take Labour here in the UK - they had a flagship tax reform policy that they claimed would result in anyone earning over £80k (as direct income) paying more tax, but that anyone earning under wouldn't be affected.
Even if you take that as true (which I and the and majority of people don't) what they deliberately downplayed was that this didn't apply to the self employed or business owners: all of whom would lose certain tax deductions and breaks. So myself as a small business owner (who employs others and contributes both to the general economy through service usage and to the taxman through VAT/employers NI/corporate taxes etc) would pay far more than someone who is salaried but makes a similar amount annually, despite the fact that I take far greater risks and contribute far more to the wider economy. So my best interests in terms of tax and regulation align more with other business owners (regardless of size) than with salaried employees.
Political theorists offer new definitions of words all the time. Not to mention, a large part of politics is about framing. But if it makes you happy, call the capitalists in my original definition the "uber-capitalists", the professionals/tradesmen/landlords the "wannabe capitalists", and everyone else "plebs" or "lemmings", as you're probably prone to doing.
And the rest of what you're saying is inane, no offense.
For the "uber-capitalists" to survive/thrive, all they have to do is move money around. The professionals / entrepreneurs still have to work to survive. If they stop working, their comfort evaporates fairly quickly. One feature of modern times is that the buffer between the "plebs" and the "wannabe capitalists" is getting smaller and smaller. More and more, this "us" vs. "them" mentality is becoming an accurate paradigm. The number of good jobs in existence to support a professional class has been shrinking for a long time. Wealth inequality is moving to near record levels, political inequality might be even greater. This is a perfectly valid way to look at things from a politics / organizing point of view.
What I'm NOT saying is that everyone's interests are EXACTLY in line, which is what you seem to think I believe.
Why can't we all band together, all of us non "uber-capitalists", and say, screw them, let's pursue policy for OUR collective benefit? Our numbers vs. their money, we win every time.
The alternative is the rich will use the same old tactics of "divide and conquer", and we're going to continue getting screwed.
