Capitalism is the practical conclusion to absolute property rights.
If no person can use another's property, without that owner's consent, you have the ethical framework which concludes, in practice, capitalism.
Now, to denounce capitalism, is to denounce the individual's right to his property (either in his body or external material) -- e.i. to advocate the theft of said property.
Can you provide a logically consistent argument in favor of theft? This must be an a priori argument, as the above argument (in favor of property) is a priori itself -- i.e. any empirical research, theory or evidence is irrelevant.
i think your definition of capitalism is insane. "the only system that acknowledges property rights"... that is laughable... no offense.
Well, it is.
Property is by definition exclusive to its owner. And the only market/political system which honors property (and its exclusiveness) is absolute capitalism. Only in such a system are all property infringing actions, such as, for instance, theft, taxation, conscription, IP, etc., illegal or prohibited.
You can't have a society which protects/respects private property absolutely, and not have capitalism.