Right, the trick of capitalism is to separate producers and consumers and force them, like poker players at a casino, to play the game on the capitalists' gaming tables with a "rake" going to capitalists. Since economic activity is not zero-sum but creative, the idea is that the surplus created (growth) will be larger than the "rake" and the economy will show net growth. Also, the hope is that capitalists wont get tired of employing their resources to keep the games going and start shutting the thing down.
But growth is needed in any case. So I don't think it's a question of no longer making economic decisions of the basis of "what is the most profitable way to allocate productive resources" but to figure out how to re-define what is "profitable". Clearly economic decisions must have a net "profitability" to society.
So let's break society down into two other groups that should be the same people but are even more alienated under capitalism: savers and spenders. This makes the problem clearer, I think. Let's say all workers had an equal portion of the nation's savings. Now we see that the "votes" a saver has are many more in number than his political votes. Do you save your money with a movie studio that (you think) makes great films? Do you save your money in building housing? Do you save your money with an enterprise that makes life-savign medicines? Do you save your money with the government? How about a car factory? What "return" do you expect, broadly speaking? What performance do you demand? What level of risk can you accept?
If, as a consumer, you don't like the cars that are produced, you don't have to buy one. But what about as an investor? When should financing be pulled from a car factory that produces lemons? What's the threshold and who decides? As a saver who voted (wither with wallet or ballot) to support a car factory, how do you remove your support if things are not done properly?
boddi