Explain capitalism and socialism without a showing of bias

>in reality capitalism is the natural result of people given autonomy in economic affairs

prove this

>Ignorant of all economic history from 8000BCE-1700CE
>posts on Veeky Forumstory & humanities

>OP asked for unbiased explanation
>layered his bias over the most unbiased explanation
Wew lad

Was going to say the same.

Best I can do in a Veeky Forums post off the top of my head:

Socialism
• Promises, in some degree, equal "power" to all.
• More or less equivalent distribution is its ideal of property ownership.
• Of the three irreconcilables "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", it prioritizes Equality.

Capitalism
• Promises, in some degree, equal opportunity for personal economic advancement to all.
• Use of property by private individuals to create firms which generate more property for themselves is its ideal of property ownership.
• Of the three irreconcilables "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", it prioritizes Liberty.

What if of the three irreconcilables "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", you prioritizes Fraternity.

Fascism, maybe? It demands that all of the nation cooperate, at the expense of liberty and equality alike.

Capitalism is an economy driven primarily by credit, wages and insurance.

Socialism is all property owned by the state.

>Socialism is all property owned by the state.

ideally no, but i suppose history often shows it that way. rather unfortunate.

Syndicalism maybe?

According to me, you pretty much get the idea that lost out to the other two in the Second World War, but I'll do my best for that one. The terms will be somewhat more awkward, since this one was snuffed out before it could really develop in the mainstream of Western thought much, despite being tolerated here and there by WW2's victors in friendly governments that do not overstep their bounds.

Authoritarianism
• Promises, in some degree, equal "regard" for all. (Best single word I can think of for what I'm trying to convey here. Essentially, that every person is an important part of the totality, and while hierarchy and differences in ability, achievement, and status are acknowledged and considered a good thing [similar to Capitalism], no one is morally vanquished for failing to attain these [similar to Socialism]; everyone has some role that will be found in the society that is "right for them". It's kind of hard to convey the basic idea or its perceived value in the modern age, or even to most non-Germans during its heyday, but it was there all the same. The civil servant culture of the Wilhelmine Era encapsulates the seed of what this might have become pretty well, I think.)
• Personal administration of property on behalf of the state or "totality" is the ideal of property ownership.
• Of the three irreconcilables "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", it prioritizes Fraternity.

>Personal administration of property on behalf of the state or "totality" is the ideal of property ownership.

what form does this take? personal/private ownership of personal/private property but the state is still the owner in the end? is that what you mean?

The same institutions associated with capitalism have arose independently across many different cultures, for example.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dōjima_Rice_Exchange

Though they might have been limited in scope, where autonomy was permitted by rulers, something objectively capitalist frequently emerges.

what am I ignorant of, please inform me

Capitalism isn't an ideology with a set of rules that people must follow. A Chinese businessmen will betray the values you mention if it is in their self-interest. Only a minority like libertarians have tried to turn it into an ideology and they are a tiny minority of capitalists, if much more vocal on the internet.

Capitalism emerges as a result of negotiations and maneuvering between people, for example if a Sumerian city state started confiscating wealth from traders, others would panic, they will stop doing business and the economy would suffer, thus the city state will create institutions that encourage trade like protection against theft.

By contrast socialism is almost purely political, the state decides it will nationalize an industry and the justification is its socialist ideology.

liberty, equality and fraternity are spooks with no objective basis and are ineffective at describing any kind of political reality

Capitalism is the means by which Socialism will be brought about, gradually and peacefully through the elimination of remaining labor by automation and AI, as incentivized by economic gain.

Well, it could certainly be organized either way (formal state ownership of everything or not). But the point I was trying to make is more that it's the ethical ideal of how property should be utilized — the "all for all" of the idea I've just awkwardly called the "Authoritarian" vs. the "every man for himself" of Capitalism. In none of the three little bullet-lists I did was it intended to say anything about the formal arrangement of property laws, save in whatever may be implied in that field by the basic ethical ideas I postulated for each of them (which grants a suitably wide range of possibilities in all three cases, I think).

I don't see a difference between what we've said aside from one of semantics over the meaning of the word "capitalism". You're choosing, by focusing on functional analogies of what has been called "capitalism" in recent centuries to features of other eras, to see it as a timeless possibility and trend for human socioeconomic organization. I'm choosing to see it as a unique phenomenon of limited duration born out of the culture of Enlightenment England. The most you can really say is that I wasn't using the term as you would — which I couldn't have, because I wasn't talking about the same thing as you.

...

Capitalism: Private ownership by individual people. (See "Gemeinschaft" for a loose sociocultural connection)
Socialism: Public ownership by groups of people. (See "Gesellschaft" for a loose sociocultural connection)

Not 100% on the sociocultural connections and their applicability here, but it's a really interesting thing that I'd like to see fleshed out by those more informed on their Tonnies than I)...

Short Answer:

Capitalism = Rent, interest and profit owned by private individuals. The beneficiaries i.e landlords, bankers and industrialists say that it was achieved because of their hard work and organisational skills that made everything possible.

Socialism = Rent, interst and profit owned by workers' institutions because they say that it is social parasitism and they rentier classes who are a burden upon the workers. Workers say that everything that the capitalists claim to have built is built by them in reality and have paid more than the value of the actual thing that was built by them.

>natural result
bias

Karl marx said that rent interest and profit is another word for exploitation of the working classes. It is the surplus value created by the workers which goes to somebody else. If the workers were to be compensated by their true value then noone will make profit, rent and interest.

Capitalism cannot justify inequal inheritence.

>capitalism is mercantilism
Wew fucking lad

capitalism believe in liberty, personal skills and entrepreneurial spirit
socialism believe in equality, helping each other and social cohesion

>True value
>LTV

>People cannot help each other under capitalism

Market exchange is a form of helping each other.

Capitalism: Globalism
Communism: Internationalism

2 sides of the same coin, both instituted by Jews

>BCE
>CE

Capitalism: "reee I want what's better for my interests!"

Socialism: "reee I want what's better for my interests

...

>Implying corporations will let this happen peacefully

Violence is the only solution.

>unbiased

Also some bits on that are false on the ideological level on the communist side, especially when it comes to the higher phase of a communist society.

Corporations will undermine their workers until they collapse because they collapse because consumption becomes impossible.

I always view all 3 of them in terms of economics:
Capitalism - Private ownership of industry
Communism - State ownership of industry (but the state is a 'dictatoriship of the proletariat')
Fascism - Private industry but with a close relationship with the state who guides it in certain direction rather than profit

Socialism is just income taken from individuals that is reinvested elsewhere by the state and are applied in all three theorys to diffrent extents such as militarys

But I could be wrong so please someone who has any insight correct me

>capitalism
its shit

>socialism
its shit

>post-scarcity meme

Will never happen.

remove trip then post, please.

Corporations will undermine workers and automate labor, but things like open-source software, decreasing prices, crowdsourcing, and democratization of manufacturing technologies will make sharing resources easier and more practical than ever.

The economic incentive for the rich is to automate.

The economic trend for the poor is higher and higher educational thresholds for employment.

This will culminate in an expansion of welfare as consumers need money to buy things and people in the future won't be reasonably expected to acquire a career without significant endorsement.

Most people will be lazy consumers who do the bare minimum, those who save their guaranteed income and pursue careers will be employed in remaining jobs.

We won't be beyond the scarcity of unrenewable resources, but renewable resources will at some point never be scarce again due to automation, manufacturing, and cheapness of technology.

We may also find ways to manufacture previously-unrenewable resources.

Obvious Georgist bias.

>hating the "CE" system
>Christ was born 3 years before Christ

Yeah, fuck off, the BC/AD system is retarded.

Kill yourself

Do people not realise that things can only be sold because someone else wants them. In that respect Marx was wrong about use values and exchange values as an exchange value is nothing but someone else's use value.
>Inb4 LTV

Also that pic commits the lump of labour fallacy.
Amongst other untruths

In capitalism, individual property rights extend to the means of production.

In socialism, they don't.

There's a lot of governments that call themselves socialist, but aren't.

Fuck fraternity

"Common Era" is pure nonsense

Hi, it seems you've accidentally used a tripcode. Now, this isn't anything serious, an amateur mistake really. No doubt like any responsible newcomer to Veeky Forums you were browsing the Rules page when you stumbled across that little function. But you see, while trip codes have their place in threads where identifying and distinguishing posters is important (like if a game of Risk or something was being played), their use outside of these threads is widely frowned upon. I'm sure you've noticed no one else in this thread is using one. You see, Veeky Forums is after all a website based around the anonymity of its users. If everyone were to sign in with their own unique ID, why it wouldn't be the anonymous image board that we all love. And for just a few, hated number of users to do it is viewed as a mark of vanity and self obsession. For in truth, the rest of us do not care who you are, and we would just as well know you as Anonymous.
Bearing this in mind I hope that in the future, you remember to remove your trip when it is not appropriate

>socialism
naive

>capitalism
cynical

>implying marx claimed ltv had anything to do with price
He explicitly said otherwise

Can we all just switch to the Chinese or Jewish calendar, please? Not like with changing our months or days-per-month, but just with the years part.

Or maybe we could figure out historically which culture was the first to develop the idea of a calendar, and then make that first calendar Year 0. It would probably be like 30,000-and-something, but we could abbreviate with the last two digits still.

Or maybe we could do like a reverse calendar, and just count down to the coming singularity when time becomes a closed system and we are able to travel throughout all known history in meta-digital consciousness. If we're wrong about the year that happens, we can just fix it in post and change it after we get there.

What emperor is China one now?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar

The thing you describe as communism is actually socialism. (It's confusing, because it was generally implemented by communist political parties - but only because they believed it was a necessary step of the journey. i.e. if they time-travelled to a feudal country, they would set up a capitalist system in theory because it's a natural step of the journey.)

"Real" Communism (i.e. the end goal of those who implemented socialism in the USSR) has no state involvement at all. The state ceases to exist. It's very utopian. (Before someone memes "le true communism has never been tried", that's not what I'm saying: the USSR tried to get to the stateless society stage in theory, but it never arrived.)

That said, Socialism with state ownership of industry etc can also be pursued as an end in itself, with no intent to ever have communism.

The thing you describe as socialism is closer to social-democracy.

Pretty much nailed fascism though.

The USSR tried to have centrally planned industrialization in order to try and skip the capitalism phase that rigid adherence to Marxism dictates.

Marx basically says at some point automation would get so bad that capital would mean everything and labor would mean next to nothing and the workers would eventually realize they needed to be a part of it, not be displaced by it.

He thought a highly industrialized capitalist society was that phase. It's seriously worth another look as within the next century, general AI and robots may very well be taking your worker jobs, and your labor won't matter because you won't do things as well, efficiently or cheaply as robots. The only thing that will matter is capital, if you own and can purchase robots.

Marx was really unclear on final stage communism, because he really wasn't sure what it would look like. He did realize that people not needing to work, or barely needing to work, and post scarcity would turn the world and it's scarcity and labor based markets on it's head.

Interesting and much obliged for the response. Whilst state controlled industry could, and does work, Communism as far as you corrected me seems to be too idealist to actually function in the real world?

Also in regards to Fascism, is there a potential for it to exist without being as militaristic as it often is? I often attribute the aggressive nature of Fascist states to a desire for a Fascist nation to build up its manufacturing capability, and the easy way to do this is to create high grade weapons which are always in demand and sell them. Once you have built up this capability you have also accumulated a large amount of debt as a nation and therefore to create a quick return of investment a war is the most beneficial strategy, creating demand for produce, being able to sell arms to your allies, and having the industrial and technological ability to win which is beneficial to clear aforementioned debt and gain territory, prestige, and every/anything else that comes with military victory. Is this the line of thinking that fascist tend to take and thus often come off as militaristic or is there something more to it that i'm missing?