If a socio-economic system incentives greed to the point where a person who is not greedy is literally unable to succeed, can you really say that greed is human nature?

almost nobody's interest to work

Except that doesn't really add up in reality. People do want to contribute. People do want to feel useful.

A lot of today's most important functions are done by people who do it out of a love for the field, not because they're paid well to do it. I'm thinking teachers. I'm thinking academics. I'm thinking people in certain medical fields such as nursing. A lot of these jobs frankly suck compared to other ones, and the list isn't limited to these.

Hell, I work at the place I do because I like the idea of working with what I do than just going private, even though I'm literally losing out on lots of money doing so.

And then you got stuff like the wealth of Free And Open Source software that people develop because they like to contribute. You got wikipedia. You got so many things people do just because they want to contribute, the list is almost endless.

Humans are wired to be pro-social. We could absolutely make it work. If anything, capitalism stands in the way of this goodness!

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have been to local protests (and the use of the word rioting suggests you might be of a different persuasion than me, and that’s ok). And for the record, I didn’t disagree with you. I grew up under capitalism and knew a brief period where capitalism wasn’t completely fucking over the lower and middle classes but that was before the US came out of the fascist closet.

Modern neoliberal capitalism is mostly based on Friedrich Hayek who thought that any regulation to the market is harmful. Smith is long overdue.

During a party meeting, Margareth Thetcher literally pulled out a book of Hayek out of her handbag, slammed it on the table and declared "This is what we believe".

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism

Adam Smith is long dead and so is whatever he defined his ideal capitalism. The rich, the powerful, the most diehard proponents of capitalism... They are all pushing for less regulation, fewer social safety nets, lower taxes, lower labor cost. They absolutely don't give a flying fuck about their workers 'ability to provide for their families.

That's the end result of profit and greed being the driving force of the economy and markets. We're just back to a new flavor of feudalism.

Capitalism is inherently about vice exploutation and getting around rukes, though. You can't say 'capitalism but virtuous'; that's nonsense. 'Capitalism but restrained' translates to reality as 'caputalism but only fir the first five minutes before breaking everything'.

So the best way to do capitalism is to have less of it than other nations

It's odd to acknowledge the long history of sabotage against socialist countries--by the most powerful country in the history of the Earth--while also implying that socialist countries would fail on their own. If they would fail, then there's no reason to sabotage them. But if you'd like examples, look at the achievements in Cuba, Asia, and, yes, the U.S.S.R.

From Micheal Parentti's Blackshirts and Reds:

E.g 1: "Today, Cuba is a different place. For all its mistakes and abuses, the Cuban Revolution brought sanitation, schools, health clinics, jobs, housing, and human services to a level not found throughout most of the Third World and in many parts of the First World. Infant mortality in Cuba has dropped from 60 per 1000 in 1960 to 9.7 per 1000 by 1991, while life expectancy rose from 55 to 75 in that same period. Smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, typhoid, polio, and numerous other diseases have been wiped out by improved living standards and public health programs. Cuba has enjoyed a level of literacy higher than in the United States and a life expectancy that compares well with advanced industrial nations."

E.g 2: "Consider Kerala, a state in India where the actions of popular organizations and mass movements have won important victories over the last forty years against politico-economic oppression, generating a level of social development considerably better than that found in most of the Third World, and accomplished without outside investment. Kerala has mass literacy, a lower birth rate and lower death rate than the rest of India, better public health services, fewer child workers, higher nutritional levels (thanks to a publicly subsidized food rationing system), more enlightened legal support and educational programs for women, and some social security protections for working people and for the destitute and physically handicapped. In addition, the people of Kerala radically altered a complex and exploitative system of agrarian relations and won important victories against the more horrid forms of caste oppression. Though Kerala has no special sources of wealth, it has had decades of communist organizing and political struggle that reached and moved large numbers of people and breathed life into the states democracy."

E.g 3: "During the years of Stalins reign, the Soviet nation made dramatic gains in literacy, industrial wages, health care, and women's rights. These accomplishments usually go unmentioned when the Stalinist era is discussed. To say that "socialism doesn't work" is to overlook the fact that it did. In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists. The end result was a dramatic improvement in living conditions for hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or since witnessed in history."

In each of these cases, we see socialist policies lead to desirable outcomes despite serious economic barriers. Many capitalist developing nations cannot say the same. We conveniently seem to forget the exploited, overworked, and underpaid millions who suffer and die under the yoke of capitalism. Land, labor, and resources are stripped away and systematically funneled to the world's richest; and somehow we repeat the propaganda that this is the best system we can hope to achieve.

Okay, yes, point; very good at that. Do we want that? Is it wkrtg the cost if we do?