I like your optimism visavis pancreativism but I cant see it happening--the whiff of hegel is too strong.

I disagree, it's exactly what is needed because the roots of capitalism are ontological, both as the creator-creation dialectic and the primacy of permanence.

There are other ways of grasping capitalism without laying out an ontology. If what we want is a description then we can adopt metaphors and synecdoche from an abundance of sources, including spinoza, hegel, and even deleuze. Althussers aleatory materialism and the new materialists out of spinoza are playing with such possibilities. I still prefer adorno's immanent critique, with a dose of hegelian negativity, and value form theory. Basically capitalism has to be understood from the level.of the commodity and value (as das kapital begins too) which means some way of understanding the ramifications of exchange society. But in no sense is such a description some kind of grasping of the being of things, since the being of capitalism is its very appearance, its doubleness and simulation of what are real social relations based on material exchanges. That is why lacan and baudrillard are just as meaningful for such purposes as deleuze (in fact more so. Deleuze is better for negri and foucault style biopolitics). As to the critique of permanence, that is an old trope and Georg lukacs and adorno's critical philosophies based on an understanding of reification and the second nature of capital (based in turn on hegel and the young marx) still does a good job.