I'm sorry, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much everything you've written.
First of all, when you say that " [food, water, shelter, clothing and education] can easily be provided for all members of society", I honestly can't see how. To say that is to ignore what you call "the power structure of the society", which, as much we (mostly) ARE in a capitalist society, the power structure comes mainly from national states. Yes, they are intrinsically with private business, but those who are part of your "power structure" are there because they are friends with the rulers, and can enjoy their benefits.
All right, so how can this "power structure" be in the way of welfare distribution? First of all: National states limit free trade, which would alllow a better allocation of resources and [feed, shelter, clothe, educate] more people. Secondly: National States, specially in the third world countries that you say are "slaves because of their loans" (more on that later), cause inequality, first by being ditatorial (like many african states), and then some more with extremely high taxes that don't have any social investment as a result.Theses taxes take purchasing power away from the people, and only serve to finance the "friends of the king".
Even if those things weren't true, what are the logistics of providing welfare for all those people? Who would grow their food, without incentives? Who would teach them, without incentives? Who would clothe them, without incentives? Who would transport all those things around, without incentives? People would only do that if they had incentives, and thoses incentives mean one thing: Money. And freer markets would allow those incentives to be better allocated, giving people producing a reason to produce even more, and people consuming a reason to consume even more.

All that said, you lack the understanding of what "international loans" mean. You can't see national debt as a standalone measurement: They are a method of financing a country, and they MUST be analized by seeing what are the other alternatives. Governments can chose to finance themselves by basically three methods: Debt, Taxes and Money Emission. I won't get in so much details, and none of them are ideal, but I would say emitting debt is the "better" of them. You see, getting into debt do mean you have to pay interest to the loaners, but that's about it: apart from deteriorating your position to investors, your debt level "throw" your obligations to the future. And to quickly explain the other two: Taxes take money away from the population with little chance to see them pay-off socially, and money emission just generates inflation, it doesn't make anyone richer.
So, you are fundamentally wrong when you say that the 40 billion dollars leaving Africa could be used to solve world hunger: It wouldn't even exist hadn't the initial sum been loaned, money doesn't exist in a vacuum: They are going to people and companies who ARE creating value wherever they are located, and helping the world to be a better place by generating this value.

Also, "profits" do not exist in a vacuum. Profits exist to be an incentive to employers to employ people, they are not "opression". And I honestly don't know where you got this idea that 3rd world countries are not new markets to be explored, and "capitalists" don't want to give them power. News for you: Capitalism and technology haven't stagnated. This very platform is a proof of that: blockchain technology would not exist if what you are saying is real. Technologies and markets are evolving faster and faster. New markets are beeing explored, and the only reason it isn't happening faster is because investors are, generally speaking, risk-averse. And the governments in these 3rd world countries are what create most of that risk. Also, internal development is not that easy to do, it is IMPOSSIBLE and utterly ridiculous to blame it all on external debts. In a lot of the so called "3rd world", external debt is not even close to the amount of internal debt the countries have, and internal debts can: a) only be blamed on the government and b) depending on its level in relation to GDP, not even a big problem to begin with.

Also, how are you praising the USSR? Yes, it had and unprecedent industrial progress for its time, but it did it on the back of what you considered so important in the beggining of your text: Quality of life. Yes, you can increase your iron production tenfold when your population doens't even have shoes...

To finish this, I won't even start on how capitalism is, for the time being, the best system we can have, and for one simple reason: it's impossible to plan everything in an economy. Even small things are difficult enough, with lots of unintended consequences, and whole economies are a whole other beast. Take it to a "whole world" level, and oh boy do we have a lot of problems. No "central comitee" can plan what the daily interactions of billions of people determine. That's why free markets matter, that's why supply and demand matter, and that's why prices having the abilty to fluctuate matter.

Your text was pretty and well written, but, in my point of view, it's lacks a better understanding of a lot of concepts, and, by the end, just sounds like some crazy "conspiracy theory" stuff. No, poverty doesn't exist because of capitalism. It exists even though we live in a capitalist society, and its levels are lower because of that. Had we lived under any other system, it would be way higher.