Yes, but, again, Socrates and the philosophic “method” you employ here has a transcending Truth that one can rely on outside the cave. Or however this is understood philosophically by realists. You ask enough questions and eventually you reach a mythical formal morality and the merely existential points of view rooted in dasein become…inadequate?
But all I propose here are particular worlds understood by particular daseins. And particular daseins have reasons to embrace capitalism and reasons to eschew it. And, with no equivalent of the Platonic entity able to parcel out more Formal truths down here “on earth”, we are forced to rely on the extent to which we have come to believe our own existential prejudices reflect a “greater” good.
You have no God though. So, instead, you must reconstruct objectivity out of Reason. But the variables here are so complex [think “mind” alone!] there are any number of ways to define the words used in the analysis to make this “true”.
And then around and around we go speculating as to whether the meaning you have ascribed to them [producing, tautologically, a particular sequence of ideas deemed “logical”] is the meaning everyone should assign them—commensurable, of course, with how we each then relate this to “universality”.
Then we have to reconfigure these words so that somehow they are – theoretically? – in alignment with what we construe to be true empirically about the world around us. And “I” in it.
Then one day we are all dead and gone and the next generation takes up this seemingly Sisyphusian task.