You can spend forever debating what capitalism is but most definitions would come down to something like "an economic system or model that emphasises the private ownership of the means of production motivated by the aim of making profit for the owners of that capital".
I was knocking this about yesterday afternoon with a few enlightened people and we all had to laugh: if that's the definition then let's be candid about the fact that capitalism has already failed. As bankers and the top management of the world's major corporations and the fund managers of the world's major pension funds have already proved, the idea that making money for owners now has any significant link with the prevailing business model that we observe on a daily basis and which is reported in our media is a myth: the aim of management is to enrich management, not shareholders. And the role of pension funds is now very clearly to enrich fund managers or the returns they pay would not be as bad as they are.
The implicit split in the ownership of control of capital, with directors and others acting in a stewardship role as if they are trustees on behalf of those who entrusted their assets to their care is dead: it's been killed by greed.
In that case the debate is about what comes next, and about how stewardship models can now be created in the interests of wider interest groups. This is the debate that we need to have. It's just that the right wing like keeping up the pretence that all is well with capitalism as it was for, and the power of that myth is what is presenting progress.
So I wonder, how long can a myth last in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is just that? Or, how long is it before the cries that the emperor is naked are heard?