I would say capitalism is a knife or nanobots, targeting very specific areas, while anticapitalism is holistic medicine and a huge mallet, i.e. something that doesn't work and just tries to fix a problem with a single, giant, unwieldy tool.
What you say is true if you do not acknowledge that classical economics is a malignant lie and that capitalism itself is dying.
Toil is often better than the alternative, since if they didn't have to toil, toilers wouldn't put up with it. And is is being automated, but not by social or "mutual benefit" programs, but by capitalism, which recognizes that it's cheaper to use a robot that works 24x7 and never makes mistakes, than a person who can wear out after a few hours. Better yet, capitalism recognizes that toilers are much more valuable than thinkers, so, in every single economy, modern and present, the natural capitalism progression has been from toilers working on farms, workshops, and factories, to people working in offices, designing new products and inventing new ideas, leaving the farming and toiling to machines. I could write a book listing examples of this.
As for the idea that capitalism is dying, I have some horrible news. Since about early 2000's, we've had globalization really take off, which resulted in global corporations that do not answer to any specific country. They are as pure capitalism as you can get, picking and choosing where they want to work and which laws they want to follow. We also had this new invention called Bitcoin, which makes restricting or regulating capitalism difficult, if not impossible. Also, we have had very strong anti-capitalist states in Europe, Middle East, and South America experience a lot of turmoil and rioting, because their respective anti-capitalist governments have blown their banks with "mutual benefit" promises they can't keep any more. People there are either demanding for more socialist programs that are not impossible to provide, or for freedom to trade without interference from anti-capitalist government.
Of course one can. I am trading my labor and time for currency, putting that currency into investments and property, and will within a few years trade it back for someone else's labor and time. I'll have all the free time I want, and will be able to do all the labor I need, without actually doing any of the laboring myself. That's how retirement, and investing for it, works. Also, I don't need the state to recognize this property. A chunk of my property is in Bitcoin. Which state is recognizing that property? Another chunk of my wealth is invested in companies, based on our mutual agreement, with the company wishing to maintain it's reputation. What state forces citizens to feel a company is reputable? Even my house is jointly owned by myself and my bank. I don't trust the bank because the government forces recognition of property on them. Over the last few years we've found that you can't trust the government to do anything at all about banks. I only trust them because I hope they themselves wish to do good business. If they break my trust, I'll go to another bank.
Why is willingly trading something you have for something you want bad?