First, thanks for an erudite and informative article.

To my mind, Marx's critique of "capitalism" as a social system is better as a critique of civilization (as opposed non-civilized societies). That, to me, is evident in that 'communism' is essentially the application of the ethic that has governed those societies--'one for all and all for one'--to (a single, universal) civilized society. Doesn't viewing it that way reconcile the differing views on the historicity of capitalism, reflecting the elements in 'human nature' that led to the initiation of civilization (upon the realization that the invention of agriculture had created the possibility of permanent surpluses)?

Capitalism--when defined (as I think it should be) as 'the mass production of goods and services for sales in geographically extended markets'--is as old as civilization is and coextensive with it, even integral to its advent and development. Marx did fail to see that when wage slavery (people being paid to be used as machines--or draft animals) supplanted bondage slavery (in which labor is property) and feudalism (in which labor is 'legally' bound to property) as the source of labor for such enterprises money supplanted property as the most important economic factor.

In all cases labor is of course a means to the end of the financial aggrandizement of the employer of the labor. That does, however, make income, rather than property, a sufficient locus of efforts to end exploitation. Income is far more amenable to being socially distributed than property is. Over time, the distribution of property would reflect the new--'democratic'--distribution of income.

if curious: "The Unnecessariness of Marxism for society to go where Marx foresaw" (here in Medium, but not behind the paywall)

Or, one can dogmatically stick with Marx's outdated ideas from the days when Modern capitalism was just starting to come into being.