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.

Territorial behavior in animals is no justification for anything?

When you abstract, you leave things out. You claim to abstract from cave people. How is that the best we can do?

You pretend, humans were cells competing mindlessly. Then you conclude, any other approach than mindless behavior was naive.

You again observe animals and justify your behavior (on a vastly greater scale) by it.

How do you manage not to see the absurdity in that? You're not an animal, you have a conscious mind, capable of rational thought and according foresight.