As I said, I aimed only to highlight the underlying theories of each theory. That is, only the most basic ideas. I say nothing of Corporations (or Committees) for a specific reason, they are one layer up from the primary ideologies of each system. They are built on the foundations of each system, but do not actually form a part of them.
If you wish to underline the basic theory of each system that would be fair enough, but unfortunately you seem to use a parable that is not only biased but also misleading simply because in the parable neither of the actual tenets of EITHER system is provided.
If you would like, I can say 'direct' or 'administer' or even 'wisely and benevolently guide' if the verb really bothers you that much. Connotations sold separately.
the Corporation, which restricts the individual to specific tasks and places him or her in a hierarchy
I agree that capitalism can be a system of as much or even more control than communism. However, I would argue that communism is a system which relies on control as one of its fundamental principles. On the other hand, the control that arises in a capitalist system does not arise directly out of the system's foundations. 'Corporations' do exert control, but the choice is always there to leave the corporation, or start your own corporation and compete with them. In other words, the individual is only controlled so long as he or she is willing to be.
The point here is that control is exerted by a corporation over the populace in a myriad of ways, none of which require the input or consent of the general public. Special interests influence government policy at almost every level, from anything from the Food and Drug Administration (An organization ostensibly to monitor the relevant corporations) to the SEC which as off the recent Financial meltdown has shown was not only hobbled by lack of resources but actually made irrelevant by policy.
Corporations now influence every facet of life and that includes foreign policy. One need not look at recent events with Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton, one can go further back to South American nations who have been directly affected by US power in the service of private interests.
Whats interesting here is the statement that the individual can "opt out" from corporate control. Short of actually leaving the country, the corporation(s) will continue to have a direct and indirect impact on the individual's life, with or without his or her consent. I once again point out the current financial crisis. You can no more opt out of the current financial meltdown than you can opt out of a rocket in space without a spacesuit - at least not if you want to live.
As for Communist control; theoretically the point is the complete democratization of and devolution of power, a true participatory democracy, where the citizen is statesmen as well. Granted this has not been the case, for a number or reasons but mainly because as I pointed out in my last post, communism cannot come into being in any society where a fully developed Capitalist society does into exist first. Marx was quite adamant about this.
On the question of fairness, I believe that rewarding people based on their abilities is not fair. We are all human beings at the fundamental level, and just because one person was lucky enough to be born smart, or born rich, or born fit, doesn't mean they necessarily deserve to get more out of life. As everything that makes us unique (and therefore 'better' or 'worse') really comes down to chance, the only truly fair way is indeed the communist way: everyone gets the same thing, no matter what.
What is most puzzling is that to you fairness and equal treatment are not desirable , yet at the same time people should be rewarded based on their abilities? Is this not a contradiction in terms?
I do not contradict myself in promoting capitalism over the fairer communism, because capitalism isn't fair, and I did not say it was. Take care not to make assumptions.
To sum up, capitalism isn't fair, but it sure makes things interesting...
Lets break this down first:
On the question of fairness, I believe that rewarding people based on their abilities is not fair.
We are all human beings at the fundamental level, and just because one person was lucky enough to be born smart, or born rich, or born fit, doesn't mean they necessarily deserve to get more out of life. As everything that makes us unique (and therefore 'better' or 'worse') really comes down to chance, the only truly fair way is indeed the communist way: everyone gets the same thing, no matter what.
This begs the question then precisely on what criteria should they be rewarded on? Once again I must admit that I am puzzled since to my reading of Smith, Capitalism is a MERITOCRACY [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Meritocracy]and through using ones latent talents, and improving oneself and laboring onwards one rises in society. This means that Capitalism makes no room for people born into wealth no more than those born into poverty, everyone starts off on an equal footing. Unfortunately as in the case of Communism, the reality is far from theory. Those born rich have access to a formidable arrays of resources and assets and this is reflected in the economic and political power that they wield. Be it in a structured organization such as a corporation or as individual actors.
Your statement about "deserving" is also quite peculiar. Capitalism does not promise a cradle to the grave utopia, no more than Communism does, or vice versa. You then attribute to Communism something that I had already pointed out in my earlier post is not true. The individual gains equal access to the means of production and its resources. its up to HIM to make something out of it. Communism only ensures a level playing field. Thats all. You make it sound as though Communism will create this borg like, homogenized mass of interdependant organism functioning as some over arching hive mind.
I do not contradict myself in promoting capitalism over the fairer communism, because capitalism isn't fair, and I did not say it was. Take care not to make assumptions.
To sum up, capitalism isn't fair, but it sure makes things interesting...
Lets go back to your previous post for a moment:
In replying, "All men should have so much," the capitalist highlights the core value of capitalism: allowing the people to determine for themselves what each person deserves based on their skills and traits, regardless of whether or not it is fair.
This statement is not true of Capitalism, since it states that somehow people as a group polity and some unspecified criteria determine what an individual gets. Are you telling me you and your neighbor are going to determine the salaries of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies? Secondly, your statement contradicts itself since you then go on to say that people get what they do DEPENDENT on skills and traits.
I make no assumptions. This is what you wrote.
Finally "regardless of what is fair?" the whole POINT of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was a matter of FAIRNESS! It was a treatise on how to reward the most productive members of society, those that enrich and provide valuable *services*. It was an attack on the previous FEUDAL system of society which distributed resources based on the circumstances of BIRTH not ABILITY.
Again theory falls short of reality, but Adam Smith was clear about that much atleast.
One can argue that your entire defense is a defense of FEUDALISM not CAPITALISM.
