Capitalism and socialism are not opposites. Human interactions have never been possible devoid of either capitalism or socialism.

Of course, making claims about anything depends upon definitions. But definitions are not arbitrary. Contrivers of falsehoods are totally dependent on shaping definitions to fit their claims. After broad scale concepts have been around for awhile, a meaning evolves that always aligns upon objective realities. Basic realities create invariable meanings for concepts over time.

Capitalism is inseparable from the concept of using money to represent value. Socialism is inseparable from humans interacting in an interdependent manner. Attacks upon capitalism must break the link to monetary representations of value. Attacks upon socialism must break the link to human interdependence.

Anti-capitalism is always focussed upon unjust control by persons with power and money. There needs to be a different analysis for such exploitation than calling it capitalism.

Attacks upon socialism always focus upon the lower classes stealing from the rich with government collusion. There is no such thing.

Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of someone else's money to spend. The assumption inherent in that claim is that whatever the lower classes own belongs to the rich. She was incapable of understanding such abstractions.

Inseparable from the dispute are cause-and-effect relationships. Relationships are abstract, meaning nonperceivable. Persons who lack abstract reality in their heads are not aware of cause-and-effect relationships.

An example of the problem is "affirmative action," which liberals created years ago to get minorities into the universities. It meant special treatment was supposed to occur to increase ratios. Conservatives were livid and still are, as vestiges of the concept still appear. Why should inferior persons be put ahead of superior persons, they argue. The self-evident reason in the concerns of liberals is that there would be no such thing as a conservative if inferior persons were not put ahead of superior persons, to put it sarcastically. But that concept is too abstract for conservatives to grasp.

Affirmative action was a corrective attempt. The concept of correcting is antithetical to persons who have no abstract reality telling them what cause-and-effect relationships are. If nothing causes anything, there is nothing to correct.

Economists are not producing an explanation as to why all resources are flowing upward to the top 1%ers. Throwing out the banking and business laws is one of the most visible reasons.

In the years of the "robber barons" (1890s plus some) the methods of rip off were so obvious that laws were written to protect the economy. One of the laws said that businesses were not to buy or own other businesses. Another law said that businesses were not to purchase their own stocks. After throwing out such laws, those practices have become standard; and they are the most visible methods of channeling resources upward.

When a company is purchased, someone walks away with that much cash, while consumers rebuy the company in the cost of products. Consumer money flows into the pockets of white rhinos (called unicorns in the fantasy language of power mongers instead of fat, white, ugly beasts dependent upon the government for protection).

Companies normally produce better and cheaper products, as initial costs are subsumed, new techniques are developed and competition coalesces. Instead of selling cheaper and better products, a preferred tactic is to keep the prices high and rake in more profits. But taxes are charged on profits, and some expectations exist for how profits are used. Buying and selling companies solves those problems. The companies are forever recovering expenses, while their friends are forever walking away with the cash. They each get their turn at it, as hundreds of companies are bought and sold every year.

Inherent in anti-socialism is a concept of superior worth, which determines who owns what. Why don't the janitors and dish washers own everything, while business administrators steal from them? There is more objective reality in assuming that hours of labor determine worth than assuming the power to rip people off determines worth.