You point out aspects you like about capitalism, but those maybe aren't the problematic parts to begin with? You imply, there were no viable alternatives, but that's just ignorance on your part.

When you refer to "private ownership", you unreflectedly endorse things like individuals "owning" land.

The consequence of that negligence are things like environmental destruction, capturing of arable land by rent-seeking individuals and on and on. A substantial part of what currently goes wrong on the macro-scale.

"Free exchange" is a misnomer in the same vein. The "freedom" leaves people to willfully avoid asking whether they really should in the first place. More importantly, it favors people with money to impose their will upon those without.

"Due process" isn't tied to capitalism to begin with and all these things don't "span back to the dawn of agriculture".

You put up the straw man of the Soviet Union, prepping it up to the height of serving as the epitome of what humans could conceive of as alternatives (or modifications) of the existing system. That's a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, not higher insight.

Territorial (read: assertion of exclusive rights to the use of land) behaviour is not unique to humans. My point is that "capitalism" is an abstraction that includes pre-existing human behaviour and motivations, and that many of these in turn are emergent from the constraints of natural world.

> environmental destruction, capturing of arable land by rent-seeking individuals and on and on

> asking whether they really should in the first place?

> it favors people with money to impose their will upon those without

All of these criticisms reflect a total naivety to ecosystem dynamics at play, and the motivational landscape that they create. As long as these behaviours continue to create a competitive advantage for the organisms that display them, they will continue to emerge and perpetuate. There is no method of social organization that can remove the advantages of resource surplus.

You'll also note that environmental destruction, resource hoarding, and interference competition are all widespread behaviours in the natural world. We are part of that world, and are subject to the constraints that it produces.

It's like trying to overcome a bug in the CPU instruction set by writing JavaScript. The "problems" are part of the fundamental substrate and aren't addressable at the proposed layer of abstraction.