You must not have read what I wrote. The important thing is the social relationship between those who work and the heirs who don't work and expropriate from those who do.
Also, you mention the US, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was in the early 1970s - that is not progress for people who work.
> so many people want to migrate to the US and so few people want to migrate to Cuba
The migration ratio between the US and Cuba is about what it was a century ago.
Where there is equality of value there is no incentive to exchange. "Also goods such as the soil, wood in trees, water power, coal beds, stone quarries, petroleum reserves, mineral waters, gold mines, etc. are often the subjects of exchange. And they embody no labor time. How then can Marx explain the exchange value of these goods? Surely the common element that governs the exchange values of these goods cannot be the amount of labor time embodied in them"[1]
If you are interested in seeing the other side of your beliefs you might like to read Böhm von Bawerk's refutations of Marx's theory of capital.
Are you against inheritance by heirs? Would the State manage wealth better than heirs or than the market? According to what I see in totalitarian states, I believe the answer is no.
Anyway, I believe there's room for improvement, I don't think capitalism is the ultimate system.
By the way, I think this article is pertinent regarding this topic https://mises.org/library/b%C3%B6hm-bawerk%E2%80%99s-critiqu...
[1]https://mises.org/wire/labor-and-capitalist-exploitation-boh...
It seems you are saying that "the rich are the ones causing the misery of the poor". If it were so, poverty wouldn't have decreased with capitalism. If it were so, you should explain why are there more poor people in countries without capitalism, and why so many people want to migrate to the US and so few people want to migrate to Cuba. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=508