Is Capitalism Egalitarian ?

About the Cover :

Chicago City. Capital ?? Who invented the word " Capital " ?? Karl Marx ??
New York is the capital of U.S.A. Berlin is the capital of Germany. Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
And then we analogized the principle to the industries.
New York Yankees is the capital of Major League Baseball (without Salary Cap).
General Motors is the capital of automakers and so on ...

Content :

One of the principal themes of Walzer's critique of liberal capitalism is that it is insufficiently
egalitarian. Walzer's case against the economic inequality generated by capitalism and in
favor of " a radical redistribution of wealth " is presented in a widely cited essay entitled
" In Defense of Equality ".

The most of striking feature of Walzer's critique is that, far from rejecting the principle of reward
according to merit, Walzer insists in its validity. People who excel should receive the
superiority benefits appropriate to their excellence. But people exhibit a great variety of
qualities " intelligence, physical strength, agility and grace, artistic creativity, mechanical
skill, leadership, endurance, memory, psychological insight, the capacity for hard work - even
moral strength, sensitivity, the ability to express compassion ". Each deserves its proper
recompense, and hence a proper distribution of material goods should reflect human
differences as measured on all these different scales. Yet, under capitalism, the ability to make
money (the green thumb of bourgeois) enables its possessor to acquire almost " every other
sort of social good," such as the respect and esteem of others.

The centerpiece of Walzer's argument is the invocation of a quotation from Pascal's Pensees,
which concludes " " Tyranny is the wish to obtain by one means what can only be had by
another ". Pascal believes that we owe different duties to different qualities. So we might say
infatuation is the proper response to strength. In this light, Walzer characterizes capitalism
as the tyranny of money (or of the ability to make it). And Walzer advocates as the means of
eliminating this tyranny and of resorting genuine equality " the abolition of the power of money
outside its sphere." What Walzer envisions is a society in which wealth is on longer convertible
into social goods with which it has no intrinsic connection.

Walzer's argument is a puzzling one. After all, why should those qualities unrelated to the
production of material goods be rewarded with material goods ?? Is it not tyrannical, in
Pascal's sense, to insist that those who excel in " sensitivity " or " the ability to express
compassion " merit equal wealth with those who excel in qualities (such as " the capacity for
hard work ") essential in producing wealth ? Yet Walzer's argument, however deficient, does
point one of the most serious weakness of capitalism -- namely, that it brings to predominant
positions in a society people who, no matter how legitimately they have earned their material
rewards, often lack those other qualities that evoke affection or admiration. Some even argue
plausibly that this weakness may be irremediable : in any society that, like a capitalist society,
seeks to become ever wealthier in material terms disproportionate rewards are bound to flow
to the people who are instrumental in producing the increase in its wealth.

This article is GRE Reading Comprehension.

First, what's the definition of virtue ? This question is ambiguous, it can not be measured
like producing the goods. The goods is material, virtue is abstract.