You seem to, in a strange way, share the same epistemological bias as neoclassical economists - that sees an abstract entity, the market /capitalism, as the organizing principle of everyday life interactions. Except that were they see virtye you see vice.
But that bias is alien to everyday perceptions. Instead of seeing capitalism, people see cars, color tee-vees, clothes, variety of food, homes, airplanes etc. - which they see as good things. And if somebody tells thatem that some abstract entitty, "capaitalism" "America" or "god" creates these things, they also see that abstract entity as a good thing. In that respect, it is a variant of the "cargo cult."
To accept you perspective, peoiple would have to think in highly abstract, hypothetical, counterfactual terms, e.g. "how would my quality of life be different if the existing social-political system were replaced with a system that have not even experienced?" I do not thin many people are capabele of thinking in those terms, let alone being swayed by such arguments.
A fundamental flaw of any attempt to change human behavior by theoretical arguments is that what exists and is experienced here and now almost always trumps the abstract and the imaginary. That is refelcted in such folk wisdom as "a bird in hand is better than two on a bush." In the same vein, a continuation of the known but crappy existence is almost always a preferred choice than going for the unknown, no matter how promising. Saved for a few adventurous types, most people go for the unknown only when they everyday life existence has been pulled from under them.
A belief that people will renouce "capitalism" (i.e. the way of life as they know it) for some abstract good (no matter how attractive) if they hear a magic word is a pipe dream. They will revolt or renounce only if (1) they cannot continue their way of life anymore, and (2) they think that an alternative for the better will cost them next to nothing.
Wojtek