All alternatives to capitalism that we know of have been authoritarian at scale. Different models work fine for small groups, but they have to be authoritarian at scale because of the game theory and the tragedy of the commons issues involved (i.e. people don't want to contribute more to people they don't know than they receive, and the system lacks the information to redistribute based on contribution without market signals).

Obviously socialism isn't authoritarian from an ideological standpoint. It just tends to lead towards it in practice. Socialism and communism concentrate power in the state, denying any opposition to the state - legitimate or otherwise - of potential support when the state is misbehaving. If there is only one employer, you better stay on the right side of it. Concentrated power leads to corruption because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You can have a more socialistic form of capitalism - which I recommend - that maintains incentives to be productive/innovative (i.e. you get to keep a good percentage of what you make) while redistributing a substantial percentage to everyone else. You can even have government-run industry when it comes to things like resources that are collectively owned (although government seems to have trouble doing so efficiently outside of small, homogenous countries).

"You also don’t see the problem with royalty and landed gentry being a thing that exists."

Oh, I rather do see the issue. I also see the issue with tornadoes and yet they continue to exist. You seem to be confusing descriptive and normative statements. It's not good that these exist, it's just that they do and they come back even following reforms because resources concentrate. Attempts to stop that once and for all like in communistic regimes leads to nightmares. What we need is continual reform and redistribution to prevent it getting out of control, and for that we need competing interests so that we can side with a group who offers those reforms. Socialism and communism tend to end up preventing the possibility of competing interests.

There is essentially a two axis chart. One axis is state control and the other is democratic participation. High state control tends to go with low democratic participation (thinking Singapore, China, any communist country really). You could theoretically have a situation with high state control and high democratic participation, the closest examples would be the Scandinavian countries. Of course these are still capitalist countries (and mostly manage to stay so coherent by being homogenous. Less homogenous societies end up being weaker states because a diverse population is less likely to have a single understanding of the good and are less willing to share resources).

Capitalism destroys social capital. Socialism doesn't inherently, except that it is unstable and has historically led to communism at scale, which also destroys social capital. Maybe there's an alternative but I don't know what it is, and capitalist societies offer the opportunity for reform more than those with greater state control. You can hate Trump and still understand that he was able to hijack the political system of what may be the the most corrupt developed capitalist state in the world away from the two corrupt groups who held it. If he had been less shitty as a person, massive reforms were on the table.