It's not really plausible, sorry to say. Capitalism inevitably devolves towards that. It's inherent in the interplay between the premises of capitalism and the coming of the industrial era.
Economic power is locked in the hands of the few and they can pass it down to their children through inheritance. Through economies of scale, small artisans' and merchants' businesses are trumped in efficiency by big businesses and many become dependent on big financiers for money. Moreover, class solidarity and separation of educational institutions lead to people hiring only those of the 'right sort'. Thus the result is the penultimate stage of capitalism: an ever-narrowing class of inherited wealth of factory owners and high financiers mixed with the old feudal manners that they ape in so-called 'high society' to differentiate themselves from the plebs, that form of metamorphosed bourgeoisie which the famous theorist James Maxton called the neoplutocracy, dominating an ever-increasing proportion of the economy while the old artisan class is reduced to the same level as the working class. In a representative democracy with a party system, people who do not belong to the aforesaid neoplutocracy are outraged and the neoplutocrats are forced to turn to various regressive social forces such as racism, sexism, nationalism, imperialism, extreme intolerant religiosity and suchlike to prevent themselves from being overwhelmed by popular progressive anger from the proletariat. These forces in turn destabilise the democracy as the polarisation of wealth between the neoplutocrats and the proletariams grows ever-greater. The only possible result, as history has shown time and time again, is a confrontation which leads inevitably either to socialist revolution and the dethronement of the neoplutocracy or to the final, highest and cruellest stage of capitalism: an authoritarian state utterly in thrall to the neoplutocracy and dependent on regressive fears and hatreds and the invocation of war to focus the suppressed ire of the general public on an external enemy for it to find release. In the aftermath of the Great War, in most of the industrialised west—Russia, then Great Britain, then roughly simultaneously France and Germany—the result was the former. The United States of America were the exception in that they saw the rise of the latter, a phenomenon which the subsequent dictatorial regime spread elsewhere in the western hemisphere by military force. Even in Japan, in spite of keeping their emperor as a figurehead monarch for purely religious reasons, the revolution that took place after the catastrophic failure of the overextended old regime's imperialism in China followed an essentially similar model, which of course as others have already noted was then exported elsewhere in East Asia.
In all honesty, I'm surprised anyone is disputing this. This sort of thing is history 101: it's difficult to predict individual events but overall the course of affairs is shaped by long-term forces which, contrary to the thankfully vanquished nationalism of a bygone era, are the same in various peoples, rather than dependent on some uniquely excellent or terrible property of peoples from particular geographical areas. After all, we're all human. I know it's fun to speculate "but what if everything was backwards and somehow capitalism was compatible with lasting democracy?" but please take that sort of thing to the fantasy forum.
