Its like the old joke about politicians asking voters if they like their principles because if they dont they may have others they can interest them in. Using the analogy of sales.
The thing about power and control is that aswell as being the perfect mechanism for equitably and efficiently distributing scarce resources market forces are supposed to mitigate the power and control of agents and agencies such as firms in the economy.
Its the whole reason that classical economics was originally labelled political economy, it was meant to decentralise and devolve power and control and perform an empowering function for individuals as producers and consumers.
The main drive was to be consumer sovereignty, markets, under conditions of perfect competition and therefore tending towards the supply of generic goods by a number of competiting producers to individuals with perfect information would make everything affordable and of a high quality as greater and greater surplus becomes the norm.
However, consumer sovereignty is at best a half truth, the perfect conditions do not exist and are unlikely to ever exist, its an illusion, a foundation myth and fiction. Useful ideologically as a contrivance to rationalise and justify a special interest but its not factually accurate.
That's before you consider the peter principle, Dunning-Kruger effect, corruption and nepotism, game theory or any of the other eschewing factors you rightly make mention of.
Capitalism to me is a hypothesis to test like any other, its been found wanting in the balance, its promises unfufilled, most of the predictions that good capitalist theorists like Hayek made about central planning at the time of the calculation debate are equally true of corporate capitalism, boardrooms, execs and private managerialism.
Class struggles have and will survive capitalism as much as they did "socialism", neither system has proven able to contain or manage them in a satisfactory way. As you say power and control.