Capitalism is merely a way of organising ownership of productive resources.
Capitalism represents the model where resources are owned privately, managed by people with a direct responsibility for the economic performance, rather than resources and facilities collectively owned resources managed by no one with any real responsibility at all.

So, I guess if you want to know how good or bad capitalism is you have to compare it the alternatives

Quick tests –
Q1 which economic model has prevailed, USA or USSR?
Q2 were more people choosing to come west over the iron curtain or go east over the iron curtain
Q3 has capitalism damaged the great lakes of USA -
But has any damage been as bad as the complete destruction of them, the way collectivism has destroyed the Aral Sea
Q4 can people see opportunity to improve their circumstances through Capitalism
Q5 how can people ever see improvement in a system where to see personal improvement above the common poverty is not only discouraged but treated as a criminal act.
Q6 is it collectivism or capitalism which force people to be reeducated to ensure they follow its dictates?

Will capitalism lead ultimately to a sustainable and equitable world for all

No, but having looked at how it has been implemented in
USSR
China
North Korea
Zimbabwe
Cuba
Cambodia

nor will collectivism or any other economic model

simply because

Economics describe merely the methods, not the goal or purpose of human endeavour.

As one politician stated “"Whether manufactured by black, white, brown or yellow hands, a widget remains a widget - and it will be bought anywhere if the price and quality are right. The market is a more powerful and more reliable liberating force than government can ever be."

And those who think equality is imposed by any method of collective resource ownership are merely demonstrating the inadequacies of their education and a stunted philosophical development

Dear Stern,
comparing capitalism to failed alternatives the way you do is precisely the binary logic that helps to maintain its spurious legitimacy, notwithstanding that late capitalism transcends the national and ideological borders that constrained your alternatives. There is no denying the superiority of capitalism when it comes to productivity and wealth creation, only its distribution and sustainability. The view you espouse above is provincial micro-economics, a vested-interest view from within that takes no cognizance of the simple unstoppable dynamic that 'is' capitalism. As Marx put it himself, "the true barrier to capitalist production is capitalism itself", by which he alludes to its fundamental dynamic, or "inner logic"--the wage-relation by which the worker is paid less than the full value of the commodities produced, and the subsequent expansionism that must entail. Despite tinkerings and reprieves that may forestall it in the short or medium term, in a closed system capitalism is inevitably doomed to extinction. That is an economic certainty since without this tumescent growth it would cease to "be" capitalism. You insult my intelligence if you think I'm stereotypically advocating some "method of collective resource ownership". I'm prognosticating on a fatal disease. If a portion of the human race survives, it's a moot point what form of tyranny it will inherit next, especially if it retains pragmatism as an ideology.
Which brings me to the ethical crisis productive of the same system. However we care to rationalise it humans are, I would argue, "ethical beings", and we betray that ethical sensibility at a similarly dire cost. Capitalism is fundamentally unethical and impoverishes the human spirit according to the same indifferent pattern it despoils the biosphere; just as we rationalise the "material" impact of this global juggernaut, so to we demean our higher sensibility and degenerate into intellectual viciousness.
I'm sorry if I sound like some rabid preacher, but this "is" our reality.

Squeers
Your point is well taken but once you have got the dragon by the tail how do you let it go?

Sometimes radical change is not good, one oppressive or self-serving regime is often replaced with another of a different colour.

The idea that ownership of capital provides some incentive over a more 'communal' approach to organisings societies is deeply embedded.

Let's imagine a different world where the people/government own the means of production. Under capitalism 'the people' benefit through earning wages for work and access to goods and services. There are many questions to ask - would the idea of profit still remain, the returns back to the government for public services; some perhaps being shared with the workers as incentives?

Communes seem to work when there is 'will' on a smaller scale, can it work on a larger one? Would all participants in the 'commune' be equally up to doing their fair share excepting of course those who are unable due to disability.

It is good to have these discussions. We are too afraid to be creative in the West and with vested groups there is not much chance in anyone looking outside the square in Australia anytime soon.

What part does perceptions about human nature play in deciding what systems might work best? Or is is relevant if one believes it to be malleable and easily manipulated?

These questions are too big for my simple brain to process and no matter the system one might aspire to there has to be checks and balances as even in Communist or Socialist regimes (or a derivative of) there ends up some form of ruling or privileged class, often at the detriment to democracy.

Increasing the participation of people in government is where I would start in a Western democracy.

Dear Pelican,
thanks for your constructive response (one too often gets dismissed as some extremist loony lefty).
It seems I've fortuitously pre-empted your post, above.
Like everyone else, I find it nearly impossible to imagine an alternative system---imagining a world without capitalism is like a fish imagining a world without water!
I believe in democracy, but an "inclusive" one (as I've outlined elsewhere) rather than representative democracy, which too easily absolves us "individually" of our social complicity.
Our population is such that it is doubtful a transition, from capitalism to any other system, could be implemented without its concomitant decimation. Indeed a logic behind the premise that capitalism drives population growth is that no other system could sustain it, certainly not in the style that the wealthy half currently enjoys. Above all, I think we have to see the problem as global. National borders are meaningless under the current dispensation. It would be worthwhile to do a little reading on the concept of "world systems", used in historical analyses to identify global immigration and trade and their influence; the current world-system is of course unprecedented.
I have no idea of how to save the world, I'm only concerned here with getting people to face harsh realities. Any positive change to the situation has to begin with the removal of ideological blinkers.

*Economics describe merely the methods, not the goal or purpose of human endeavour.*

Stern, exactly.

Squeers makes the crucial mistake it seems, of assuming that humans
put ethics before self interest. As we see in countries where
Govts decide things for individuals, corruption and power is simply
moved to those who control the Govt and their friends.

Human self interest once again dominates.

Funny how in most of the established capitalist countries the populations are declining, only to be topped up with refugees from authoritarian regimes whose birth rates are exploding.