I mean, sure, that's what happens literally any time you set up a super-powerful government, necessarily including any government powerful enough to redistribut

I mean, sure, that's what happens literally any time you set up a super-powerful government, necessarily including any government powerful enough to redistribute all of a society's resources. See also: company towns, Pol Pot, the Kims, Mao, or what was happening in that rebellious colony called the USA before the citizens stopped it. But claiming it fits a bespoke definition of "capitalism" seemingly invented for this particular discussion, despite that being against literally everything they professed, seems a bit much. They didn't end up with extreme wealth concentration by letting people freely exchange goods and services. That usually happens when people take control of who is able to exchange goods, whether via monopolies or government control.