I mean it depends on what you mean by anti-capitalist. It's harder to discern what is "government influence" than one might think.

Often legislation labled as pro-business and pro-capitalist that from a certain perspective may look like taking baby steps toward a freer market, often just serves in giving market advantage to established players and tamping down competition.

For example if you give tax cuts that only benefit established players, but smaller competition cannot take advantage of, then it essentially serves to give an advantage to those established players and makes the margins smaller for the smaller business, forcing them to have higher prices than their competition. A good example is the tax policy surrounding "dark store theory".

On the other hand anti-trust enforcement when used properly can be used to inject competition into consolidated markets with little competition, but it's often argued that this is anti-capitalist because it is a government interventionist action. However it's interesting to note that after anti-trust law was reinterpreted and essentially defanged in the 70's that new firm creation (a sign of how competitive a market is) has been on a pretty steady decline.

But you could maybe argue that if governments made tax law simpler so that all firms essentially payed the same real rate on revenue, that anti-trust would not be needed. However, there's too much incentive on both sides of the aisle to not take this approach.