I'll start with a bit of philosophy. Obviously, only a true commie would argue against the seemingly instinctual behavior to trade things, because voluntary trading makes both (or more) individuals "wealthier". But this is only sustainable if new things are being produced. If cars and laptops and cellphones weren't being built anymore and carpentry and construction weren't being done anymore, then there'd be cars and laptops etc. lingering for a while, but eventually, Entropy would prevail and nothing would be left.
The only way to really tell whether anything is "valuable", is the test of whether or not someone can produce something and have people consider it "valuable" enough to voluntarily purchase it, and have profit left over. If people don't buy it enough and pay enough for it to be profitable, then they don't "need/want" it enough to make it worth the physical resources, labor and time (the 3 ingredients to wealth) to create.
Therefore I do consider myself a capitalist. But I also consider myself a geoist.
The main reason why is because there are some valuable things that exist naturally, that you cannot produce nor improve, and even if you could, it'd still be immoral to occupy it and make people pay for it. This includes things such as air and indeed-although to a lesser extent-land.
Air is obviously something that companies should not privately own and sell because if that were legal, then they could theoretically suck up all Earth's oxygen supply and make you pay anything they wanted just so you could breathe! But to use a less extreme example, the same can be essentially said of land.
You cannot produce land (unless you triggered a volcanic eruption in the ocean that could result in above-sea-level rock or something). You cannot "improve" land either; putting a house or the like on top of land does not improve LAND, it simply creates shelter. The land is simply underneath the house being occupied.
Final point: My solution is to not abolish private ownership of land, because you need to occupy some amount of land in order to even have a house or other property (farms, gardens etc.) My solution is to, however, not allow Big Land Rent to immorally transfer large amounts of wealth to themselves and become wealthy from doing so. It's sorta hard to say that when you consider that my own father owns a few houses that he's renting and wants to give one of them to me and one each to his other kids when he dies, because I know he is doing so out of love, but I still can't stand for that.