Small voting blocs can be massively destructive, too. I’m sure you’re aware of how unstable elections can be (a few thousand or tens of thousand strategic votes could potentially swing some presidential elections).
Also, some people disagree with you. Your argument reminds me a little of about google arguing they are not a monopoly. I assume it’s unconvtroversial here (CF) that google has a monopoly (on search at least), but in court they argue for viewing the situation from framings that minimize the impact. Why are you not doing the same when you frame the opposing view as overwhelming and massive? Plus, that kind of thinking is how we get to the point of justifying 2% immigration per year (relative to population), but that means ~50% in like 35 years. So if you take a longer term view, the US is being overwhelmed with a massive new chunk of the population that will cause political distortions (obviously immigrants are not homogeneous, but that’s not really the point). The point is that it’s simplistic framing and does not capture the full picture.
I’m not sure about that first part. I used to believe it, and have heard lefties push it, but I’m not sure anymore. Just being part of a capitalist system doesn’t mean people get better ideas or learn to value the same things we value.