I feel like you and I are very similar in our views. Not identical, and with some differences in our responses, but the core I feel that our beliefs are similar.

This is probably true, and I feel like it's leading us to talk in circles to a degree, so in an attempt to break away from that, I guess I'd hope to leave you with some more general points to consider:

Capitalism isn't only an economic system. It is a lens through which we see the world, and it has skewed everything we know about humanity (humans are not, by default, greedy nor selfish). It has also convinced us that the lens is our own eyes and that this is how things have always been, but it isn't, and we can remove this lens ourselves and see reality for what it truly is - corrupt by a system designed to reward corruption, and absolutely not the inevitable result of "human nature".
To argue that a system like that is comparable to a system that is instead designed with an end goal of a classless and equal society where exploiting others would lead to expulsion rather than reward, tells me you would benefit from looking more deeply in to the alternatives (socialism which can develop in to both communism and/or anarchism, and horizontal governance in general but significantly, to humanity as it existed before "superpowers" and the days where single or a handful of individuals could claim superiority, hoard all the resources, and exploit everyone else, like Marx did. And while you might argue that the scale of sizes of these societies play a big part, I would argue that we can both exist in smaller but interconnected communities, but also that with the right framework those better systems could easily be scaled up. We already produce enough food to feed everyone and more, we just need distribution that is for feeding rather than for profit).
Sure, no attempt at full socialism or communism has succeeded so far, but that's in a big part because the capitalist nations that continued to exist all around them intervened (most often by force, but also financially) because they saw these projects as an existential threat (which it is) as well as the existing capitalist mindset (and in some cases feudal, the precursor to capitalism) in those who did a power grab (Stalin, Mao, the Kim family, to name a few), because that's all they've known from birth - those with the power are free and safe, but that's exactly why we need to focus people on abolishing the system that rewards the power grab while building a viable alternative to it, instead of playing within its rules and expecting anything to shift.

I would also suggest, in the nicest possible way, that you check your privilege. There are many people out there who have never even seen a farm, let alone are able to access one for food, and the closest thing to a plot of land they'll have their whole lives is a window box. And sure, you can grow food in those, but not enough to actually sustain anyone, and the energy it takes in caring for plants (especially for people like me who have a knack for killing them no matter what) simply isn't worth it (or even there at all) for most people who are struggling.
I also think you vastly underestimate how much energy surviving at that level actually takes, there is no energy left to go around telling even just their better off friends how bad company x is and why they shouldn't buy a fancy ice cream, when they themselves would buy it in an instant as a treat if only they could afford to. The poor person will just leave that conversation feeling deflated, and the better off person feel judged, and neither is likely to actually make any meaningful change in their behaviour.
None of this, of course, is to say there is anything wrong with what you're doing, it's just to point out that many simply don't have those options, and you should set your expectations accordingly.

(1/2 reached character limit lol)