I mean fundamentally, accumulating capital would be pretty pointless if not for legions of poor(er) people willing to do whatever the owner of the capital wants them to.
One of the standard anti-capitalist arguments for redistributing wealth is that the super-wealthy do not, in fact, use their wealth to have others at their beck and call to an extent even remotely proportional to how much better off they are. The usual framing is that less wealthy people spend far more of their money on goods and services, therefore we're better off if they have the money instead of the super-wealthy, but of course it's the same thing really.
