One, we are not a pure capitalist economic system, and I would go so far as to argue we have not been a pure capitalist economic system any time in this nation's history going all the way back to our founding. Mixed model economics has been around for a long enough time to suggest all we are talking about is how far the lean is towards market economics or towards planned economics. We might have been close here and there, but I doubt we ever achieve a total government (at all levels) complete hands off system of economics. Even right after our independence.
Second, capitalism is not the first economic system that included the notion of private ownership of property, private participation in an economic model, the idea of debt or profit, or the idea of collection of monetary power and/or collection of precious metals as a source of wealth and/or collection of resources as a source of wealth. As an example, Feudalism predates Capitalism by centuries. Feudalism did truly exist, was widespread, was market controlling, taxed, and involves similar collections of wealth, property, profit, and aristocracy. Going back further we can cite as an example the economic system of the Roman Empire. A somewhat lean to market economics (in the sense of that period,) but strongly controlled by central government, taxed, backed by slavery (some hatred there) and expanded upon by conquest and implanted regional governorship. Or, more collections of wealth, property, profit, and aristocracy. Both of these examples that really did exist saw unequal distribution of economic reward, had plenty of poor (and slaves,) and neither was a kind period for humanity or was peaceful.
The truth is these example systems of economics all predate Capitalism and in some regards generated more social turmoil, war, and fallout from collapse than we have achieved using our mixed model economics. Another harsh truth, in the context you are talking about, the closest we have ever existed to pure market economics was mostly during the Industrial Revolution period. Mainly across European Nations and the US (as it existed at the time.) In a large way, without urbanization then capitalism would not have had the same impact. The key was handling socioeconomic reforms of manufacturing, agriculture, and manufacturing.
What you fail to acknowledge are the facts. Both prior to and after the closest this planet has ever come to pure market economics, looking all over the globe, and going in each direction all the way back to the earliest of human recording and up through right here today we have overwhelming example after example of collections of wealth, ownership of property, economic systems that created profit from goods and services, people that had way too much and plenty that went without, crime, war, hatred, social classes and plenty of socioeconomic forces keeping them, a difference in rewards from development and advancement, and overall... aristocracy.
It does not even matter if we are talking about a pure wealth based aristocracy, or a governmental aristocracy, or some hybrid of the two they all took one thing. An economic model one could take control of in some respect for the benefit of the few at the expense of others. Every objective review of history shows this. Hate or indifference has always been there even in more planned economic models, and we have so many examples it is conclusive. You have little evidence that we all of a sudden found something spectacular with Capitalism (that never really existed in a pure sense) that caused some massive jump in hatred.
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.
In other words there is a social contract that requires the government to protect these three rights for all in return for citizens following its laws. If the government does not do so it is illegitimate. Please note that EVERYONE is entitled to property as long as it does not conflict with the right to life of others. In other words one can possess property as long as he does not take away another person's right to life and liberty. If the government restricts a person's access to the resources that exist in nature, but does not guarantee that the person can sustain his life, it is not fulfilling the social contract and is simply engaged in theft for the sake of the owners of property. So your contention is bogus.According to Locke there are three natural rights:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
The social contract is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it can be overthrown.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.