Simulacra

Baudrillard, in all his modesty, seems to be putting forth a deterministic trajectory of how Earth will be eaten up by simulacra and how all loss and confusion will only worsen. Will Earth basically turn into LA, in his sense? And will this occur simply by virtue of the fact that simulacra, having been set into motion by capital, are a malevolent perpetuum-mobile? I think that B would nod yes, but I want to question the foundation of this stance. His argument is very convincing but I felt it needed dimensions that addressed, say, social psychology. In other words, I felt that capital(ism) as the ultimate simulacra-driver should have been substantiated more. Why is capital presumed to turn all representation into simulation by metonymy, to enact a totalizing system of exchange, and is there really no “going back” to a “truth,” a real? I understand that these are basic questions but I feel in order to arrive at some kind of answer an entire geneology of the concept of capital/exchange must be traced. Assuming that institutions and power are merely hollow vestiges left over from a time when they were alive and well, how do we theorize the power driving simulacra? Is it mainly a semiotic power that works (spirals) through language? What is the relationship between the diachrony of language, its malleability, and simulacra? Is there any possibility at all for an oppositional discourse? Also, I wish that B would be kind enough to provide some tactical pointers on how to take up this symbolic challenge of capital (is it even relevant to try?).