Assumptions underlying capitalism

Along the same tangent which I took in my previous post, I was wondering if we can construct a model for capitalism in general, based on Hatch and Shein's models of cultural assumptions and values. I am beginning to wonder whether the capitalist model itself has many of the underlying assumptions that Enron embraced, including the social darwinian model which justifies in/out systems of values ("rank and yank"). For example, the prevailing capitalist thought is that people will be successful based on their own achievements - in other words, you get whatever part of the pie you deserve and want. Therefore, wherever you are in the economic ladder is appropriate for you. The "reality" which must be constructed in order for this to work is that 1) there is an unlimited supply of wealth and 2) everybody has equal opportunity and access.

In order for this model to hold, two things must be true (really true - not perceived to be so) - 1) there must be an unlimited supply of wealth and 2) ppl must have equal access/opportunity.
The second point has been proven false repeatedly. Studies of educational systems, where achievement gaps based on socio-economic factors including ethnicity and language determine one's ability to acquire credentials to move up, and a criminal justice system heavily biased toward a white wealthy population completely disprove that "truth" (assumption). 
Furthermore, the supply of wealth is finite, allowing only so many people to continue to accrue it. As long as the wealthy are getting richer (money begets money), the poor can only become poorer. Unfortunately, the result of this is the fact that the United States ranks 49th in the world in terms of economic equality. That's right, our great nation is right up there with Sierra Leone and Uganda in terms of wealth distribution. Furthermore, those nations have a much greater (by more than 500%) shadow economy, which allows people in poverty to acquire means "off the records," thus increasing their personal income. The shadow economy in the US is extraordinarily low.
Do you think that the underlying assumptions behind capitalism are similar to those in the Enron movie? If we take the corporate culture and place it in the macroculture of America, where capitalism is part of our inherent belief structure, what can be said?

Oppression and hierarchy

Last night, we talked a a bit about oppression and hierarchy as it relates to corporate culture. Paulo Freire was brought up. We asked, who is oppressed? If a group is not aware of their own oppression, are they then oppressed? By extension, does lack of awareness mean that it is ethical to continue certain systems of behavior provided the oppressed is not aware of his/her own oppression? I would argue that it is not ethical.
If we use an example of people with less intellectual capability (mild retardation), I am thinking that everyone would probably be on board, although history shows that this was not always the case. Such ppl would not be aware of their own abuse or exploitation; therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not exploited or oppressed. So it is also unacceptable to exploit children. So why is it acceptable to oppress a group of people (blue collar workers, for example, or the "rank and file" on a corporate ladder) by training them to enact only obedience in order to justify the success and wealth of those above them? Why do we make the excuse that they are not oppressed, only living out the life which is suited for them?