The Negation of Capitalism?

Lately I've been reading Makers of the Modern Mind by Thomas P. Neill. In his section on Marx, he explains Marx's dialectic in terms of negation. For example, a system (thesis) will negate itself (antithesis). Then, a new system (synthesis) will emerge. In this fashion, capitalism will negate itself, and socialism will emerge. Socialism will negate itself, and the result will be communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.

This appears to be exactly what's happening in the current financial meltdown. Our economic system is negating itself. Just to be safe, I went to Merriam-Webster's for the definitions of negate:

1 : to deny the existence or truth of
2 : to cause to be ineffective or invalid

Looks pretty much like what's happening now!

Perhaps I also need to consult Adam Smith and more Marx for more information, but I'm going to stick my neck out a bit.

Is securities speculation part of capitalism as they understood it?

How much of the current situation is due to the status of any means of production, as Marx understood them?

Capitalism, according to M-W:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

In securities speculation, people do own shares of companies, or debt obligations of companies. They can also own anything from futures to any sort of derivative.

But are the speculators interested in what the company's actually does, or are they more interested in turning their securities over at a profit?

My take is that a capitalist is someone who has an interest in an enterprise for the purpose of making money through the enterprise actually doing something. In my mind, the enterprise comes first, moneymaking comes second.

Now, the moneymaking has come first, apparently, sometimes to the detriment of the enterprises (GM, Ford, Chrysler, the various failed banks, AIG, for example). This is also evident with income trusts; a company is set up to produce income. Of course, but what about the business? Seems like putting the cart before the horse.

Here I am showing my knowledge gap. This is more of an impressionistic reading of the issues.

However, if capitalism is more about ownership of capital goods, which implies a more than cursory interest in them, then can a shift to "profits first" be considered a negation of what capitalism is about? Or is it that capitalism has evolved from concerning itself with capital goods to concerning itself with financial foo-foo dust?