In competition between unofficial (ie mob-controlled) businesses, there is direct use of lethal violence. That is, crime is here directed not against workers, but against fellow capitalists. Violence (in popular understanding) is much more considered a crime, than is exploitation – for example, slavery is most easily condemnded as bad, because there is use of violence (lash) in it. And even communists who criticise capitalism, condemn aspects of it, that evoke violence (eg in a pamphlet from the early 1840s by F. A. Stilch, there is incidentally the analogy on how the deprivation of a person to earn a living by himself, equals a death sentence). But there is no actual lash needed (mostly), when you can cancel someone's employment.

As exploitation (in the abstract) seems difficult to criticise, there is a tendency to focus on violent crimes, and even socialists (such as eg the Zionist founding father Max Nordau) at their polemical best against exploitation, rely on the analogy to crime:

"The real unforgivable crime, perfectly avoidable and to be fought tirelessly and ruthlessly, the typical case of human parasitism out of convenient habit, not out of organic necessity, is social exploitation. And the great remedy of this order of criminality, would be an organisation of society which would make cooperation perfect, which would not allow indelicacy in exchanges, would prevent the abuse of the superiority of the strong and ensure the weak the minimum of goods essential to existence. The doctrine which tends towards the realisation of this ideal is called socialism." source: academia.edu Btw Nordau had great esteem for Lombroso (a socialist too).

My simple (basically empirical) question for this thread though nevertheless is, is there a use of violence among normal capitalists themselves in civilised countries with a functioning state system (ie not in the "wild west" places of the world, where the state is not functioning)? Can we find examples of it in histories of corporations (a fascinating domain of history btw)? I think such examples would perhaps more easily shake people's belief in capitalism, but it's also an interesting theoretical question (why capitalists agreed to grant the monopoly of violence to the state).

According to common understanding, the state has a monopoly on the use of (lethal) force. But also according to common understanding, capitalist competition among firms is cut-throat. One answer could be, that firms trying to eliminate competitors, can resort to using the violence of the state (by lobbying, or by court battles), hence they do not need to use violence directly themselves. But given the fact that firms hire private security teams, and engage in corporate espionage, why is it not conceivable that they would resort to direct assassinations against competitors? Is there a chivalric code among capitalists, that prevents them using direct violence? This impression probably gives exploitators some moral legitimation (in the eyes of the exploited people), as they're at least not violent monsters against everyone.

Perhaps one could argue, that there is no point, as firms listed on the stockmarket do not have a real personal "ruler", whose assassination would spell the end of that firm. But still, there are plenty of privately-owned firms (or famous billionaires, eg Bezos, who apparently do hold tremendous power in their person). And just because there are plenty of workers, that can easily be replaced after their early death, doesn't stop capitalists from disregarding the lives of workers, so too the fact that there are many individuals who (as CEO etc.) can replace an assassinated capitalist, does not necessarily make the resort to violence entirely pointless (without effect) to improve their standing in competition.