Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? And are those rules independent of the capitalist ideology or do they result from this ideology?

Let's take a first stab with a wikipedia definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

If we take Marx, we'd probably look best at his "mode of production" definition, which I'll summarise as follows: private ownership of the means of production, extraction of surplus value by the owning class for the purpose of capital accumulation, wage-based labour and market-based exchange of commodities.

What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership

A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit.

Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected.

Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else.

Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations.

EDIT: to answer my initial questions. I think ethical rules can be derived from the ideology but also think they are dependent on the capitalist framework. There could be overriding other ethical reasons to reject economic and political frameworks due to their consequences (inequality) or replace it with another framework automatically rendering capitalist outcomes as "unjust" as the new system would have its own ethical rules presumably at odds with capitalism. Before going into that though I'd prefer to stick to just capitalism in this thread for now and see what "real" capitalism should look like based on its theoretical framework without letting ourselves be too much distracted by the reality on the ground.