While we generally associate Capitalism with market economy and Communism with planned economy (with its corresponding bureaucracy), that does not mean that Cap

While we generally associate Capitalism with market economy and Communism with planned economy (with its corresponding bureaucracy), that does not mean that Capitalism vs. bureaucracy is a valid dichotomy, not even in the sense of being two ends of a continuous spectrum. Capitalism and Communism are types of ownership of the means of production, while market economies vs. planned/bureaucratic economies are ways of distributing or allocating produce. Capitalism is ownership of the means of production and its produce by individuals who are not those who exert labour to produce, while Communism (in its myriad of varieties) can be summarised as ownership of the means of production and its produce by those who exert their labour. One can have extremely bureaucratic regimes in a capitalist economic system (for instance, the highly bureaucratic health insurance system in the USA as compared to how straightforward non-capitalist universal healthcare systems are). On the other side, one can have an essentially communist ownership structure operating in a market economy (e.g. worker-owned cooperatives competing with each other in a free market). That's not to say that Capitalism doesn't very often go hand-in-hand with market economies, but it is a mistake to attribute the merit of the free market as an efficient allocator of resources to Capitalism itself, in a "merit by association". Furthermore, while a (perfect) free market may be provably the most efficient way of distributing resources, the efficiency of a market has no value as of itself; it depends on what resources are being exchanged in the market and to what extent the interests of the market participants are compatible with each other (a human being with a limited lifespan and need for survival does not make the same kind of decisions as a potentially immortal institution).