Sure. Let's say I'm trapped on a deserted island with nothing but the clothes I'm wearing. I have no capital. Through my own physical labor I build several shelters using the raw resources found on the island. I then craft tools to use for fishing and trapping. All of these things consitute wealth in every sense of the word and through time I begin to accumulate said wealth.
Now it is your turn.
Explain how capital can exist without labor.
On a desert island, there is no need whatsoever for a medium of exchange, and no economic need or possibilities above hunter/gatherer levels of development.
A modern economy, or economy of any complexity approaching a modern Western economy, is grounded upon production, or, in other words
work. It is labor, production, creativity, and "human action" that takes raw materials and changes them into a wide variety of products for human use, consumption, and felicity. Only the existence of money - and money prices - which are the only information transmitting medium or means that can intelligently determine the value, and hence the allocation of resources used in creating, of various goods and services, is capable of supporting a large, complex, and prosperous economic order.
"Capital" isn't just money. Iron ore is capital. Trees are capital. Raw copper is capital. Fish swimming in the ocean are capital. To Crusoe, or at a very primitive barter level of economic develoopment, raw items can be traded directly. They are captial and the are, in essense, also money. To make a raw material useful in a much more complex economic context, and to actually raise common living standards into actual "affluence," someone (an entrepreneur) has to imagine and think, and devise a use for such a raw material. Then people have to go dig it up, process it, and turn it into a good that others want to trade some of their own property for (the medium of exchange known as money).
This requires savings, or amassed, accumulated capital. An entrepreneur then has to create a business, hire workers, administrative staff, managers etc. and deploy this productive capacity in an intelligent and rational manner. This is production, and there is no wealth creation without it. Neither is there consumer consumption without their first having been
productive economic activity taking place in which goods and service were created and presented to consume.
Consumer demand does not drive the economy. This is the core fallacy of Keynesian, statist economics. Very true, production cannot exist without consumption, but without production, there is no consuming whatsoever. There is, after all, nothing to consume that has not first been produced, and no money to purchase what has been produced that has not been first generated by other productive activity that allows consumption of the products of other productive activities. Consumption does not
drive the economy; it supports, or is an integral aspect of all economic activity, but it is not the foundation that makes an economy possible. That is action, activity, work, labor, production, and effort to improve material conditions for the purpose of consumption. Consumption and, at a deeper level, to materially improve material conditions and increase human enjoyment, felicity, and economic security, is the reason for production; is the reason
why human beings work, strive, save, invest, and invent. Consumption is what they do once work has been done and goods/services have become available - through productive economic activity - to consume.
Further, consumption, in and of itself, does not create wealth. Consumption is an aspect of a much larger web of interconnected, interrelated, and spontaneously generated and coordinated production, in which consumers are producers and producers are consumers in a vast matrix of productive activities in which consumption is only the end result of a fantastically complex, systemic effort to improve human's lives and temporal condition. Man's fundamental problem is not the production of consumption, but the production of wealth (which is the source of all consumption, including its most important side-effect, the accumulation of private capital as savings and the investing of that capital in further economic activities, or expansions of already existing activities).
Consumption is limited by the ability and incentives to produce, not the other way around. Consumption only exists because production exists. Anyone who consumes, say x, must first earn the money necessary to purchase the goods and services he desires by himself engaging in other productive activities, thereby generating for himself the means to consume at all. Others (y, z,) produce in other sectors of the economy so that they may consume that which x produces. They also consume what a, b, and c, produce (some of which are materials used to produce what x helps produce at various stages of production). D produces so that he may consume that which is produced by x, z and b, and so on, throughout a vastly complex and mostly unforeseen and unintended economic web of cooperation and competition.
Capital can be either the medium of exchange, or capital goods, including raw materials. There's plenty of capital (fish, crabs etc.) in the sea, but for Crusoe, they are useless until he works and strives to attain them. The fish on the stick over the fire is now capital; it is capital being, or about to be, consumed. Other fish will be put in a small alcove of sea water that Crusoe has separated from the main ocean by a wooden fence he has constructed out of tree branches and vines; raw materials, and useless, until he applied his thinking mind, imagination, and labor to fashion into more capital.
Crusoe can sit on the beach and demand, demand, demand, demand, and demand some more, until he starves to death, but until we produces - works- and creates capital out of the raw materials he has at his disposal, he has no economy, and nothing to consume.