You'll have to define "capitalist mode of production"; large swathes of capitalism are perfectly normal and necesary for improved standards of living.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production plus the investment of capital for profit. Under socialism, capitalism would be sublated rather than reversed. Socialism will build upon the achievements of capitalism, just as capitalism built upon the achievements of feudalism. Somebody back in the 15th century might have said to a new capitalist that large swathes of feudalism are perfectly normal and necessary for improved standards of living.
I wouldn't necessarily blame "capitalism" for so many problems as much as "materialism". As you pointed out, it's about "the destruction of all non-commercial values." Really, this has been coupled with an expanding sense of libertinism that further subverts normal social interactions through hedonism.
You are taking ideas as causes rather than effects; in reality, the economic base of society is the cause and changing ideas are a side-effect of changes in the economic mode of production. And I do not regard materialism (properly understood) as a problem; it is
nihilism which is a problem, and nihilism is a natural side-effect of the development of late capitalism.
We both know that the market system isn't to blame for the environment, though. You could hardly argue that past socialist regimes have been notable for environmental policies; while it's true that bourgeosie values have undermined conservation and subverted efficiencies, the materialist values of socialist regimes has an equally poor reputation and is merely a different form of it.
Indeed, and I would say that this is because of the fact that socialist regimes in the 20th century had to take on the task which Marx believed would already have been accomplished by capitalism - the rapid expansion of the forces of production. It is this which makes socialism possible, and until it is accomplished there can be no socialism.
Agreed, although I'd stress that an ubermenschen society might be a bit more befitting for such a role; a sustainable economic and social structure requires quite a bit of organization, therefore direction and leadership. This new structure will need to be aligned to higher principles than materialism, otherwise it'll simply be a reorganization of the previous plutarchy; the more democractically aligned, and the more consumerist and less efficient it'll be.
You're assuming that all proletariats are like the American proletariat - consumerist drones with no class consciousness. I foresee such an ubermenschen society arising in a post-capitalist America, but not in Britain, where proletarian class consciousness and socialist traditions are still relatively strong.
That's not the context I meant collectivist in, however; the financial system is an entrenched part of the contemporary plutarchy, but it wasn't performed as a class-concious decision. While some socialized action will occur, it'll be at the interest of individuals, and not simply for the benefit of the "proletariat". They'll largely still want to compete as individuals.
Again, this may be true for the American proletariat, but not for that of Britain or even the rest of Europe.
The idea that the disempowerment of the bougeosie plutocracy would hand over the means of production to the proletariat, however, isn't necessarily true. For instance, nationalizing the banks doesn't mean that it'll be socially controlled.
I absolutely agree, which is why the programme of nationalisation of heavy industry in Britain in the 1950, 60s and 70s was such a failure. The bourgeois state apparatus owned those industries, not the working class. Nationalisation is not socialism; it's just a rather inefficient form of state capitalism. However, following its final crisis,
no form of capitalism will be viable, whether 'free market' capitalism or state capitalism. The choice will be either socialism or barbarism.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)