Sure, but long periods of stability in a market are established essentially by force and power. Even within these long-lasting institutions are the workings of millions individuals seeking whatever it is they are seeking. Whatever pops out of chaotic anarchy doesn't change that these institution are propped out of madness and power, and that they will fall to same thing eventually.
I think you are right to characterize capitalism as insane; The environmentalists have basically got it right in so far as you have an economic system which pursues unlimited growth and self-interest as the realization of human freedom, whilst living on a planet that has finite resources. Technology means these limits are no absolute, but there are still there.
In the 18th and 19th century the idea that man could satisfy unlimited wants was still relatively rational because our scientific, technological and economic powers were still quite limited and the number of people who could be 'rich' was quite small. By the 20th and 21st Centuries, long periods of economic growth have meant that we now have massive powers of production, and an even larger global population, with even more people expecting to satisfy unlimited wants as the realization of "human nature". But at the same time we have drastically increased the pressure we put on the planet from the amount of resources we consume and waste.
This is undoubtedly environmentally unsustainable and insane; capitalism cannot go on forever, at least in it's current neo-liberal form. We are at risk of a very drastic deterioration in the ecological life support systems which we rely on so something will have to change. I'd prefer the easier path but I doubt the sanity of the system to see how delusional the desire for infinite growth is. What is more difficult is that because our conception of human nature as selfish is so closely tied to how we define freedom, such a change would necessitate a very deep change in how we understand not only our relationship with the planet and with other people, but also ourselves.
I am more skeptical as to whether you can say this system is propped exclusively or even primarily up by power. As I said capitalism remains a social system, based on the social organization of production and co-operative labor. Mass production is only possible with the co-operation of people on a very large scale, even if the mass consumption that results makes our species look deeply selfish. Whilst on the surface we think that people do this on a wholly voluntary basis out of self-interest, it is near impossible for human beings to live any other way than in a co-operative system of organization as basically we'd starve.
Ultimately, capitalism is therefore based on an illusion of control as the anarchy of competition works against the ability of individuals to have power in the system. In a way, our current conception of individuality is an illusion based on private property because we conceive of individuality and society as irreconcilably opposed; our loss is there gain- and that only makes sense when private property is involved and we work against each other rather than together. Of course, the major criticism of other economic systems is precisely that control is
not an illusion but is very real as a totalitarian system that it subjugates people under a collectivism. So I don't think the collapse of the system is very likely because it is not based purely on individual consent, but the longer the system goes unreformed, the more likely it is that we end up with a potentially 'totalitarian' system of sorts as economic necessity means we fall back on our social nature.
