Unless you are a "capitalist" you can't speak for their cares and personal thoughts. Calling out some undefined and shadowy group of "capitalists" IS the "conspiracy thing".

The nationalization of industries is at least socialism adjacent, and often textbook. Government ownership of industry is a necessary condition of socialism.

Actually, it would make good sense here in the U.S. to at least regulate fossil fuels as utilities; they are as central to daily life as water and electricity, and we now produce sufficient quantities to provide for our own needs. Allowing the prices we pay to be fixed in the futures markets, as is the current practice, imposes an uncertainty tax on consumers that goes directly into speculator pockets.

On the other hand, centrally managed economies, and in particular, single product economies like oil states Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, are particularly fragile and vulnerable to corruption, oligarchy, and grinding inefficiencies, witness Russia's fumbling military. Nationalization feeds into the inherent stupidity of attempting to manage complex systems with centralized command structures. China is another example of the dangers of centrally managed economies. For all the talk of the "nimbleness" of China's dictatorship, the downsides of mistaken decisions from "central committees" are becoming obvious. China's Covid response is becoming a true disaster, their "ghost cities" of command built real estate, built outside of market demand, could crash their economy. As you say, this is complex stuff, and ?Elizabeth's constant harping on conspiratorial aims of undefined capitalists clear none of it up.