What I would say is that the distinctive feature of capitalism is its focus on the private ownership by the possessors of capital of the means of production. If I recall history properly, prior to capitalism, European systems were more focused on the ownership of the means of production by the persons who produced the products. In other words, a shoemaker was a person who had a shoe shop and owned the means for producing shoes. In capitalism, the capitalist owns the means of production and he employs workers to engage in production that he may have no part in. He does this for the sake of making a profit and the satisfaction of needs is incidental to this. Because it thus focuses on private ownership for the sake of making a profit in this fashion, the system has resulted in, for example, there being very very few shoe shops that produce shoes in which the person that actually makes the shoes, owns the means of production. What we see now is that shoes are make in factories that are owned by capitalists who employ workers to make the shoes. The capitalist profits by selling the shoes for more than the production costs in terms of the property, materials, equipment, and labor. Because it thus focuses on such private ownership to make a profit, as I said before it leverages greed which is based on selfishness which produces hate. It also produces vast disparities in wealth because the capitalist is primarily motivated to increase profits, which require him to keep production costs, part of which are wages to a minimum. The result is the vast income disparities that we see today. And it is of no surprise that there has been a rise in the number of hate groups that correlates with the rise in the rise in income inequality that we see in the United States.
I will try to come at this another way for you and this conversation.
What I am getting as is economic control (through direct ownership, governmental control, or otherwise) of property, of resources, of the means of production, and of labor all predate the advent of the Capitalism leaning Industrial Revolution. Same thing is true of inequitable distribution of wealth from the bringing products and services to an economic model. And, the same is true for the concepts of debt and profit. And, the same thing is true of employment (in our terminology) but as it applies to the workforce (in historic terminology.)
Sure, there were plenty of examples you bring up. I do not doubt that, what I am offering you is from history we do not have concrete evidence that a higher lean to market economics in the Industrial Revolution did something for labor that had not been seen before. Also, we do not have concrete evidence that because of labor practices post this period we all of a sudden accelerated economic imbalance.
The best for instance is both the Roman Empire and further back the various Egyptian Empires. In both, labor was organized in some regard (slavery, or control of the lowest class of worker) as a means to control production, distribution, and profit making of the few. Major developments initiated by the government, or major military movements to take over some other economy all ended up with controls to ensure few (not many) profited. In both of my examples it happens to be the government of the empire itself, but the point is control over labor and employment practice all existed in some form before. But your example does not negate the overall economic activity under these various empires where collections of wealth turned into aristocracy, and there was plenty of social and governmental turmoil and revolutions because of.
In all cases, and to my point in all economic models, you still get collections of wealth and those that go without. There is simply no roses and sunshine view of these older economic models that everyone in those modes did well enough to survive. In just about all economic models there was still those that worked in terrible conditions for very little gain, where someone else was in control often profiting from the condition.
Therefor hate groups, for whatever social or economic reason, always existed. Some economic models (and government types) were better than others at controlling the lowest class in order to suppress uprising. Income inequality, and even those with absolutely nothing, also existed well before the Industrial Revolution period. What the Industrial Revolution taught us was the importance of a mixed economic model that leans to market dynamics. What it did not teach us was planned economic models handle population social dynamics better, if so then all those models would not have collapsed as well (for whatever reason.)