Indeed, change over time generally delivers a more stable society, although it usually does require a few 'violent time' that make the progression from one stage to another.

An anarchistic society, or a socialist one that's functional, will in my opinion require at least two technical developments. One is likely some form of atomic scale manipulation (that would render the idea value and scarcity meaningless) and the second will be the possibility of long range space travel or colonization (which renders the concept of nationhood irrelevant related to individual responsibility and community engagement).

I'm not really sure it 'reflects' the human condition or nature at all, but I would suggest it defines it more. We raised and socialized within a series of experiences and cultural imperatives which define who we are. Capitalism has a great deal of influence, in a world where scarcity is common place. Wealth has replaced land as a means of establishing influence and power, since the move from agrarian society and 'feudal systems' (where the capacity of farms and produce outweighed the influence of money).

Its always been there in some form or another, the idea of exchanging goods by barter is arguably a form of capitalism - but probably until the turn of the 20th century, mid 19th century it had not become a dominant power in society, in which the idea of profit justified action taken (particularly over maybe ethics or morality).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I will be a benevolent Monarch when I finally get to Reign over my subjects!

In joke James.

Equality can never be true in society, without serious generation changes to how humans learn to perceive, if at all possible. We define our reality by 'differences' and not similarities, and consequently we can only ever define a world appositionally. All we can ever do, is make the means of recourse against prejudice and inequality suitable to protect individuals from the power of other peoples prejudices.

In terms of self interest and capitalism, I think this is a common mistake, there is a correlation, but only when you reduce the idea of self interest to 'money', rather than why people pursue the production of wealth. I work and run a business, not because my nature is aligned with capitalism, but that my life is better if I do so. My self interest requires that I produce wealth, but I don't pursue wealth production for its own sake.

People for example do the lottery, not really because they want to be rich, but I suspect for the most part, because they can then 'buy out' of the need to produce wealth in order to enjoy their life. As such, we have adapted our nature maybe towards capitalism, rather than it reflecting ourselves. We're not producing wealth for its own sake, most of us are producing wealth because we need to, in order to fulfill interests. But we'd just as happily pursue them for free.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Certainly true, but all society tries to pursue this objective, despite of the abject disasters (drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, certain ideas, certain books, women) and in fact its often this absurdity of trying to force people to be something, that actually then changes society through objection. And the more you try to force that on people, the greater the failure, but this is the lesson that society never learns; even if its only 10% of a population, the harder you push, the more it will prosper.

Ultimately, the end of capitalism will occur naturally through a process of erosion of people's willingness to believe in it, almost certainly coupled with technological changes that underpin it. Marx argued that, but I think he's wrong to assume it will be socialism (which is just a reflection of capitalism). If you remove 'scarcity' you remove value and status as relevant factors in social definition, and that invariably means a 'social epoch' of change.

The industrial revolution created all that we have today, but as you imply, it came at a big cost to our humanity. I hope that the future world will address that balance so we can all lead more comfortable lives, but they will never be equal lives.
There will always be something that to which people aspire that makes them "better" than someone else.

Not at all - it creates a different balance of power, it would however make 'wealth power' less dominant. The problem isn't really capitalism, its how capitalism generates wealth and how those with wealth use that power. Same problem throughout history, the problem is not about capitalism, feudalism, aggriculturalism, theocracies or dictatorships - its about the abuse of power to bend society to the demands of an elite. You could see that immediately with the Russian Revolution, where in upon gaining power Lenin and Trotsky used that power to define a society they wanted to control. Its not communism that's the problem there, its the use and abuse of power.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]