(the article still had some of my text in re its distinguishing characteristics last I checked), had been given an earlier personal position vis. a vis (where my main contribution is at the start of the back matter, "Length and Semantics" thread in the index) more than a decade ago in the then current en wiki user home page. Here I'm updating for the intervening learning and the period going forward.
The essential distinction between the concept to be articulated and actually existing Capitalism, is that the latter is based on the exploitation of externalized and dead labour. Specifically, finance Capitalism, uses the dead form of labor value in money (whose ultimate source of value is the living labor power used to get the use value items the finance Capitalists sells at a markup called "profit") controls production and thru it society. The hallmark of this distinction is that the finance Capitalist is virtually never the actual creator of the wealth she appropriates, but is at most a manager or original conceiver of some line of production, at least insofar as industrial production is concerned, petty bourgeois professionals, actors, athletes, etc. being a primitive form of the living kind to the extent they remain sole producers and don't use the dead form of thier own labor to enter the regular domain of conventional capitals in various ways.
Living Capitalism then would realize the earlier referred to synthesis of Randian Capitalism and various Socialisms. The essential distinction is that while finance Capitalism is based on the accumulation of the money form of value, from which it projects power, living Capitalism on the other hand is based on the accumulation and intensification of value of labor power itself, specifically that which produces intellectual property, for a similar purpose.
In prep for drafting this page, since I intended a synthesis of Rand and Sarte, I looked at IOE to see how that side would affect the structure, if it would suggest § titles. I processed Peikoff's dismissal of the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy and realized there was nothing in this banal philosophy except a spirit of groundedness and simplicity that was of use, as in the matter of the concept of Truth (that it is not ineffable).
History: Totalization without a Totalizer
In that spirit (of the Randroids), we can dismiss the question Sartre poses but never got to answering in the Critiques. The totalizer is Man, the heroic being, as the Roarke/Galt like individual and as the being which can use a mind to find its place in material existence.