Antonio Gramsci touches on this extensively in his theory of cultural hegemony. But to answer in plain English, part of the criticism of capitalism is very much that we have no option but to partake in many of its measures/metrics/etc...It's not as contradictory as you seem to think, but rather, it reinforces the point in a way. Take consumerism as an example
OK, so I presume you're coming at this from a Marxist angle based on the Gramsci reference. You argue that capitalism forces us into consumerist habits but you can actually limit your participation in many things related to consumerism. I'm not suggesting you can be completely free of it, but you can certainly manage your involvement and change how you interact with it - i.e. Buy refurbished goods, use sharing platforms, support the “right‑to‑repair” campaign, and simply limit consumption.
If we tie that to our own habits using a specific example, I'll ask you a question (you don't actually need to answer - just think about it)... how many smartphones have you gone through? And you may think, in the grand scheme of things, this is meaningless, but micro‑actions by the many soon add up and get noticed, because each device embeds us deeper in a global extractive system.
Anyway back to Marxism. My understanding is that Marx sees it as lifecycle process - feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Right?
Now (as it stands), the issue with Marxism for me is that (in my opinion) you have to eliminate desire... and the state cannot do it. Only individuals can eliminate desire - the ability to conquer yourself, if you will. Marx doesn't say this, it's my theory - and why Marxism will never have a smooth landing. Marx focuses on alienation... but many can also get alienated by the loss of property or goods if they've spent their life working for it in a different system. So will be alienated by Marxism...
Also, the problem is many adherents to his principles can seem to be angry revolutionaries who (if successful) have (historically) imposed an ideology by force upon populations who are not in a position to accept it. The worst examples from some self-identified Marxist regimes have involved millions of deaths carried out by an authoritarian state - i.e The Bolsheviks, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao.
Then we get the excuse of "that wasn't real communism, they got it wrong, we'll do it better next time".
Admittedly we could differentiate between Marxism and State Socialism, but even so...it will seem that until the populace conquers itself, Communism can never work in the long term unless held together by force.
You mentioned Late Stage Capitalism in an earlier post, so changing the focus slightly - a lot of people are noticing the long march through the institutions as espoused by the Marxist Doctrine, the degradation of civic institutions, Common Purpose masquerading as something it isn't, degradation of the family units.
Couple this with the fact that history rhymes - many feel something is rather off. The oligarchs know. Stakeholder Capitalism has already been identified by the WEF as the incoming replacement. To me, this reads as fascism for the few governing communism for the many. No middle class. It rather seems like serfdom revisited.
What would work? Maybe you'll say it's Pure Marxism. I disagree for the reasons outlined above. More likely a hybrid blend of several doctrines. Capitalism won't work on its own as it eats its own tail, and Marxism hasn't worked in the past because its had to be enforced by a bloated state (IMO). I always believed in a mixed economy with strong antitrust commissions, robust environmental legislation, and public ownership of essential assets such as electricity and water. Basically strong checks and balances against exploitation of people and resources.
commission.europa.eu
unric.org
