Yes it does. They are definitely not mutually exclusive. Please look up what the terms mean.
Capitalism involves, among other things, the private ownership of the means of production and private property (and accumulation thereof). Whereas this is not the case with Socialism, strictly speaking.
As you may be aware the USA has a very strong history when it comes to protecting private property rights, likely stronger than any other country on this planet. It's absurd to call the uSA a socialist society, as much as it is to call Cuba, for example, a capitalist society.
The USA was once a great example of capitalism, but that is no longer the case. Private property is being confiscated, taxed, and redistributed. Businesses are highly regulated and purchasing power is being stolen from the people by a banking system created by the politicians. What we have now is a great example of socialism. Karl Marx would be very pleased with the way things are in the USA now.
Anyone who thinks that the USA is still a capitalist country is completely clueless.
Capitalism and Socialism is Collectivism. It's the same Bullshit. Private property is always sub-property, which is guaranteed by the state, because with this private sub-property, the tax payer is able to generate taxed surpluses.
Without a state, there is no such thing as a private property.This has never been true and is an example one of the great falsities the leftist-anarchs believe. Not only does property exist without the state, animals act as if they own things, themselves, their herds of female, and territories even. There've been done some interesting studies on property ownership in the animal kingdom.
Some primitive tribes do live collectively, but in that case they live as if the tribe owns everything, not as if there were no property at all, which belies your point, since they are stateless.
Some tribes do live collectively? All tribes do live collectively, within Dunbar's Number! The capitalist and socialist collectivists live
hypercollectively. Collectively living tribes do produce
no surpluses, because beyond the governed society there is
no need to produce growing surpluses, as it is the case in collectivist societies exclusively, where you are forced to pay protection money to the
ever growing state mafia. Tribes beyond the state do produce about the same amount as they did 100'000 years ago. No growth, no economy, no market, but self-sufficiency. This is fact, and your stories are science fiction. That's the difference.
Dream on!