Just waiting for one of them to chime in, "but the wealthy EARN every penny that comes to them". The way I see it if the distribution of revenue was smeared out more along the org chart economies might have a better shot at money flows for things like say ....mortgages. But we continue to operate into the future with about as much vision and foresight as a chicken with its head cut off.
Perhaps the rich do earn every penny, if we think of "earn" as nothing more than hard work. But we recall that "the devil works hard too", which reminds us that not all work is worthy, and we understand that, all other things being equal, the hard working person born in an affluent family will likely finish better than the hard working person born in a hovel. then we must turn our attention to the equality of opportunity (not outcome), if we desire a just society.
Earns every penny, like my friend who inherited a large ranch which happened to have oil underneath. Now he and his brothers and sister are each worth millions. No sweat or long hours involved. One of the nicest guys I know. Besides the forgein cars, mansion and frequent vacations he hasn't changed a bit.
Its not just chance. You've got the inner circle drinks after work with management crowd who get to make personal phone calls and do their nails etc.. While the independent types are seen as anti social and left out when bonus time comes around but do most of the work, some of which actually is taken credit for by managers ( that from real world experience). Also you get thug managers who siphon bonuses into their income. Its more rampant then anyone wants to admit. Noone ever said the workplace was a democracy. Really, then your civilization isn't either.
It`s a circle, and the goal of communism is a stateless society, i.e. collectivism/anarchy, and if the teas are at the bottom right, they`re somewhat close.
Well if they didn`t and had a conscience, life would be a bitch(Blair converted to Catholicism, after he stepped down, i.e. he needed to confess his sins).
Imho, the so-called circle mentioned by the OP is formed only on the political axis, where the economic extreme of communism and the economic extreme of laissez faire capitalism (hereafter privatism) are established through authoritarianism. This political extreme, facism, is the link. The other political extreme, anarchy, cannot force, ie. cannot "join" either economic extreme, that is make communism and privatism resemble each other. All four implied politicoeconomic systems are plausible: anarcho (read democratic) socialism, democratic privatism, authoritarian (read fascistic) socialism, and authoritarian privatism. It does not seem to make sense that the other axis, the political axis, can be viewed as bent 'round to form a circle from the perspective of either pure communism, or pure privatism, as neither of those indicates what form of power will be exercised to bend that axis.