That age old debate between communism and capitalism is an illusion of socio-linguistics.

This one isn't for the faint of heart.

The (perceived) conflict between capitalism and communism is littered with intellectual misappropriation. These are just labels for social relations structures, that when analyzed, are to all intents and purposes identical. When we perceive distinctiveness in one or another we are simply noting conformity with one of our mentally preconceived definition matrices. These matrices incorporate various characteristics, and the way in which we see subconsciously selected these characteristics is influenced by the social relations system in which we live. In other words, the notion that there is an intrinsic difference between the two is simply an artefact of our recognition of differences in the socio-political stratification of nations.

The debate essentially concerns the distribution of power and ownership. Since the distribution of power and ownership is often illusory in nature, it is immediately difficult to form any clear classification criteria for political systems, capitalism and communism being two examples. It is commonly held belief that ‘communism’ is some form of social relations structure that sees power and wealth in the hands of the state, on behalf of the people. ‘In capitalism’, the argument may be that hierarchy is determined according to private property, and that the state power of the otherwise ‘communist’ system is subjugated to the capitalist individual. The idea that there is some significant difference between individuals operating as the state and individuals operating as a corporation is an artefact of linguistic expediency. Our labelling of social relations system according to ownership hierarchies is done only with the intention of advancing whichever form of ownership we want to advance, otherwise, there would be no need for distinctions.

Pre-civilization living was hierarchical, but was not capitalist. Individuals contributed as component parts of whichever nomadic tribe they belonged to, and the lack of economic competition is the defining difference between pre-civilization social relations and civilization social relations. The development of hierarchical civilizations generated political conflicts, and in turn these political conflicts came to be defined by differences in opinion about how the hierarchies should be styled. In reality, all ‘politicians’ advocated hierarchy by definition, since they themselves sought to gain power, which axiomatically implies hierarchy at least in the sense of a power relativism. The descriptions of the politicians proposed tweaks to hierarchy were motivated in much the same way as modern day product marketing is. Descriptions such as ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’ can be seen to be, by their very nature, non academic, since they did not arise of curiousness, rather out of greed and politics, money and power.

So the difference between these two systems essentially rests on the idea that power changes form according to who holds it. The ‘state’ and the ‘corporation’ are anthropogenic social constructions, and as such communism and capitalism are anthropogenic social constructs, since they derive their respective definitions from these institutions; except, the state and the corporation are not institutions in their own right, they are merely examples of many possible extensions of the economic (distributive) ‘institution’. An institution must have a responsibility unique to itself, and that is why the state and the corporation cannot be regard as whole institutions in the classic sense, because they share the purpose of distribution, albeit seeking to do so in differing ways. A corporation could well be viewed as a microcosm of a state, the only relevant difference being the cosmetic one between geographical national boundaries and social business agreements. Thus, capitalism is a form of ‘social-ism’ whereas communism is a form of ‘geographical-ism’. When we see that ‘social-ism’ is a distributive system on a geographical scale that is defined similarly to what is regarded as ‘communism’ the definitions are blurred to the point of insignificance.