On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism

I reject your definition of capitalism because it's theoretically nice-sounding but empirically inaccurate. My counter-definition: capitalism is a system in which individuals and business entities are given license to function according to a narrow, myopic understanding of self-interest that degenerates into socially destructive greed. This promptly permits the devolution of a capitalist meritocracy into a plutocracy, which is why we don't have the "pure" free-market system that free-market purists dream of. This outcome is built into capitalism, this is its fatal flaw. This is not a straw man definition of capitalism, it's the verifiable real-deal. It's my opponent's definition that's an inverted, positive straw man, an idealized definition that he prefers for obvious reasons. My definition of communism: a socio-economic system grounded in the realization that our interests are interdependent, that therefore the effective and smart way to pursue one's self-interest is not by operating selfishly but by working together socially, by being cooperative rather than competitive. As for contractarianism, it's grounded in Hobbes' pessimistic view of human nature, which I don't subscribe to. And, as philosopher Jean Hampton points out, a social contract would be unlikely to actually rescue human beings from Hobbes' cruel "state of nature". And as law prof Patricia Williams points out, not all human beings enjoy the real-world status of being the independent agents needed for a social contract. You need a healthy degree of social justice before you can draft a fair and freely-entered-into social contract. Humanitarian principles of social justice, then, must first be in place, and are the real foundation of a good society. Moving on, "free riders" = the conservative's bugbear, welfare moms. This is a problem under welfare-state capitalism, but under a system based on the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", a system with full employment and equal distribution, there would be no "free riders". Then, yes in certain examples "communist" systems degenerated into tyranny, but this was due to long established authoritarian political traditions and thought patterns in these countries, it's hardly an inherent problem with communism. Next, under a democratic form of socialism the "state" becomes what it's already supposed to be in our faux democracy, an instrument to serve the interests of the people. Now on to an argument for communism. Why should people prefer communism, or socialism, to use the less buzzwordy word, over capitalism? Well, the philosopher John Rawls provides one rational reason. Rawls suggests that we intellectually imagine a scenario in which we're about to come into a world with a social system of our own choosing, but we have no knowledge or inkling whatsoever what our status or position in that social system is going to be, and then ask ourselves what form of society we should choose. Obviously the point of this scenario and exercise is to force us to think about what kind of society would really be most likely to ensure our and everyone else's best interests. For example, if we were to choose monarchy as the form of society we'd like to be born into, perhaps wishfully thinking that we might be born a king or queen, well, we might instead be born a peasant, and this is actually much more likely. So, realizing this we think again and cross monarchy off our list. This is basically how the scenario works, and we keep casting about for the type of system that would be safest in terms of having little probability of turning us into a victim, and a good probability of respecting our humanity and individual interests. There are other obvious non-starters, feudalism would not be a very good bet because we might find that we're serfs rather than lords. Nazism would be catastrophic for us if we wake up to discover that we're Jews or Gypsies rather than Aryans! Etc. But would the society that many "rugged individualists" and "libertarians" assume would be ideal, a true-blue "meritocracy" in a "free market" where one is perfectly free to pursue his self-interest to the best of his ability, would such a society be that safe a bet? Remember that you have no idea what your position in this meritocracy will be. You have no idea what abilities you're going to be born with, what gifts you will possess or lack, what deficits you may suffer from, no assurances at all, kind of like in real life! And you have no idea what kind of opportunities will still be available for someone with your particular skill set. Perhaps other, more talented people (and unless you're ragingly egotistical you have to acknowledge the possibility that there will be individuals who are more talented and clever than you) will already have locked up most of the good opportunities and the wealth in society. And perhaps they've set themselves up in an unfairly advantageous position, making everyone else second-class citizens. After all, "meritocracy' doesn't mean equality, it means individuals using their personal merits and capacities to climb to the top, and once they're at the top they have the power to scuttle your meritocracy and turn it into a system designed to serve their interests more than yours. In other words, your meritocracy won't ensure a level playing field at all, and for all you know you may find yourself low man on the totem pole. Taking such a risk is hardly in your self-interest, if you're a gambler you might be inclined to take it, but it wouldn't be too smart a thing to do. Now doesn't capitalist theory propose just such a risky "meritocracy", one that's likely to, and in our real-world experience does degenerate into more of an aristocracy of money and privilege, in which the rich and well-connected rig the game in their own interest and against yours and mine? Again, how then is capitalism such a good bet in terms of my self-interest? Perhaps the heretical answer is that it's not! Rawls himself does not reason that communism would be the best alternative, but we don't have to go all the way with Rawls unless we wish to be dogmatic Rawlsians for some strange reason. Arguably, an equalitarian society in which we own everything together would be most likely to ensure that no one else has the disproportionate economic or political power to infringe on my interests and happiness. Communism, that is, doesn't guarantee me a big piece of the pie, but it guarantees that no one else takes such a big piece that all I'm left with are crumbs. And such a guarantee provides more safety vis–ï¿½–vis my self-interest than pure or any modified form of capitalism. Such a society, communism, would be a truly libertarian society because no one would be in a superior position to rob me of my liberties. To recap, remember the episode of Star Trek in which Khan, the genetically superior man from the past reminds us that "Superior ability breeds superior ambition". Well, superior ambition in a so-called "free-market" "meritocracy" would promptly lead to people of superior "merits" putting themselves above the rest of us and establishing a dictatorship of merit that would sound fair, like the Soviet "dictatorship of the proletariat", but would be just as unpleasant. Only authentic social and economic democracy, which some like to malign with epithets like "communism", would protect us from all such forms of dictatorship and injustice, from anyone's superior ambition to violate our interests. (PS, to reply to one of your arguments in round one, if Crusoe and Jones had a bigger, longer-range, and more rational picture of their self-interest they might realize that despite being able to earn more money outside their commune, living in the dog-eat-dog mainstream world might have adverse consequences for them and therefore it ultimately would be more in their interest to stay put.)