This is why yours and similar arguments speak past other people. The defining feature of capitalism is private ownership and competitive markets. Against the accumulation of capital? Don't describe that as capitalism. Against monopolistic forces? Again, those forces are dangers to successful capitalistic systems.

Marxists can define capitalism and socialism with precision. But when people defend capitalism and when people argue against capitalism, they are referring to different things. People defending capitalism are defending markets and "the invisible hand" as a mechanism for positive social development. People arguing against capitalism are arguing against monopolies and market distorting accumulations of wealth.

Trying to convince people that capitalism doesn't mean markets is not a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, you might accomplish your goals better by helping people realize that socialism and govt regulation can lead to stronger, healthier markets.

My overall point is that capitalists and anti-capitalists use different definitions of capitalism and therefore the arguments are doomed to futility.

But I do not care about "stronger, healthier markets" as a goal. What interests me is liberation from the market and collective ownership of capital.

Capitalists generally do not care about markets in the abstract either: what motivates them is class domination. But they don't want to state that plainly, and so dress up the discourse with talk of markets, efficiency, etc etc.

What is the appeal of liberation from the market? Aren't you participating now in a market of ideas?

I don't know why you "other" capitalists. It doesn't seem right.