>Capitalism is objectively a failure too (in certain countries, e.g. the US)

For one, no country on earth has ever been Capitalist. The word itself is a Marxist word describing a system that worships capital, it's actually meant to be derogatory and sarcastic. Every western country today is a liberal democracy and follows Liberalism, where any one in particular lies on a spectrum from Capitalist to Communist is variable but only within a fairly small range.

Finally, only a wilful idiot could call the current US a "failure". Is it flawed, far from perfect, miserable for a large part of its population? Yes. But does it also deliver them from starvation, war and natural disaster? Yeah, mostly. Better than nearly all other systems. It could do better, maybe a lot better, but it's so far from "failure" it's quite laughable.

But besides from that, European-style social democracies (note, also liberalist) can only exist because the US exists to guarantee that you can be that way safely. And because advanced, rich nations are more profitable for the US to trade with.

Marx spent the first half of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto "worshipping capitalism" and praising capitalism for more extensive advances than ever before. Marx strenuously agreed with your "better than nearly all other systems" to the point where he argued capitalism was a necessity in order for socialism to even become possible, because of the immense economic growth brought by capitalism.

It's not Marxist to hate capitalism, it's Marxist to see capitalism as an incredible advance over what came before, which can still be improved on thanks to capitalism laying the foundation for further advances.

Please see my comment history for my post immediately prior to this one. We agree that the wealthy have a disproportionate slice, at least, but I think I have a more specific and realistically-addressable cause than 'capitalism'..