The capitalist mode of power is mediated through monetary exchange. And if exchange is a vehicle of power, you cannot assume it away. In this sense, capitalism sans markets is an oxymoron.
I do not proposing assuming or abstracting away exchange, but the metaphor of the market assumes/abstracts away power. What I am proposing is using a different analytical metaphor that will encourage/allow us to focus on and better understand exchange as a vehicle for both using and extracting capital/power.
For example, the way I see it, every market transaction involves two separate exchanges, the exchange of money which is always intermediated by finance, and the exchange of the commodity itself between buyer and seller. Accordingly, I illustrate the market to show each circuit (the money circuit and the commodity circuit) such that finance is central, not exogenous, to the market. My concern is that defining the market as it is will not necessarily change anybody’s existing understanding of “market,” which like “freedom” and “liberty” is iconic and capable of meaning different things to different people.
You have already explored pricing power as it affects exchange, and Tim DiMuzio has explored credit-money as it affects exchange, so it is clear that CasP is robust enough to make progress even through the market metaphor, but that may be because “power” itself is the primary analytical metaphor of CasP.