Communism VS Socialism VS Fascism VS Capitalism Table / Chart

First, I hope it was okay to post my homepage for my blog on here Quinton, and if not please delete it and I will refrain from doing so in the future.

Your post on the types of governments is excellent and one worth posting. I merely refer to all of them as Totalitarianism and our founding fathers typically called it despotism. Basically, either of the two will suffice when conveying a dictatorial style of government in which one individual, family, or state rules all. The political spectrum, which can be seen on my blog
http://www.concernedforliberty.com/blog/?p=55 reveals both ends of government and the course in which it grows. At one end of the spectrum we have anarchy, which represents 100% freedom and 0% government, and on the other end we have totalitarianism, which represents 100% government and 0% freedom. The spectrum depicts government growth on a consistent basis which begins as anarchy and continues to grow until it ultimately reaches totalitarianism. The fact is once any amount of government is established it does not stop growing and will inevitably reach total government. Both the left (Democrats) and right (Republicans) are statists that advocate large government but on different extremes.

Another way to look at it is that there is individualism and collectivism. The collectivists are winning the war currently, and if it keeps up we are doomed to totalitarianism. The collective elite has taken over our education system where they indoctrinate the students by use of propaganda from an overwhelming majority of leftist professors and teachers. This is a powerful weapon for the collectivists, and one which may or may not be overcome. However, the field of economics is one way in which we may be able to overcome the collectivists. This will be done by more students learning the Austrian School of Economics, made famous by such men as Hayek, Mises, Rothbard and Hazelitt. The Austrian school is growing in popularity and rightfully so. I suggest those not familiar with it to study it. The best place to do this is at mises.org which is the school for Austrian Economics with its main campus located at Auburn University.

The best form of government is the Republican form that our founding fathers gave us, yet is proved to not be perfect as it has already been hijacked to cater to the statist left and right. We are now referred to as a democracy which is far from what the founders had in mind, as a matter of fact they said democracy is one of the most dangerous forms of government, where the majority rules with no regard for individual or minority rights. Therefore, 51% will always take away the rights of 49%, which results in a loss of liberty for all. This is no different than mobocracy where the only dissenting vote is the person at the end of the rope.

Our country was meant to be a representative Republic with our constitution installed as a safeguard for our rights. Well, in my opinion one major flaw with our constitution is the fact that it can be amended. However, if it could not be amended then that would be saying it was perfect, which is absurd. I believe it does not really matter what type of government a country has because it will eventually become a dictatorial style of government over time. The only feasible means of preserving our liberty is to vote for candidates who favor smaller government and hope they follow through. This will prolong the end of our freedom by several decades if done on a consistent basis, however eventually the small government leader will be replaced by a large government leader such as we have now. If the large government leader does more damage than the small government leader did good, then we have a problem, and that is what has happened over the last couple centuries. History has shown that governments typically last about 200 years, thus our government is approaching its end.

I don't really see any way to stop the big machine from growing, but only to slow it down. Personally, the only person I think could buy us some more time is Ron Paul. He advocates smaller government more than any other politician I know of. However, I doubt he will have the chance to be elected since he is unpopular with the Republican party, and I would argue it is because he supports limited government.

Although there are some people who claim the Nazi party was Fascists, I believe they were actually socialists (National Socialists) and would be better placed in the socialism column.

There are probably plenty of socialists who would like to distance themselves from the Nazi association and disaster, but in truth the Nazis differed from the communists only because of disagreement about their idealolgy of indoctrination - the Nazis believed the German brand of Socialism was superior.

Under the Nazis, economics was also a hybrid - it would be impossible to believe the Nazi government would not have kept tight reins on business with such a brutal central government controlling everyone's lives. The Nazis, like the socialists, implemented lots of welfare programs. And like any socialist government, the Nazis used price controls to attempt to rein in the economic disasters the were quickly being realized and still maintain bureaucratic control.

The state and the Fuhrer (the "Father" or "Leader") was "God" - sort of like the Romans version of "Pater Patriae" and Mao Tse Tung (Father of the Revolution). All of these imply that a central government leader is to replace a belief in God (or a god(s)) and ultimately an appreciate of a common law and rights to personal property.

I think your table is on the right track, but you may want to look a little more into economics and understand price controls and find another historical source other than Wikipedia or something like it.

If the Nazis weren't socialists, why then did they call themselves the National Socialist party?
Why not something like NFP?

I agree with everything except Republicans as TRUE CONSERVATIVES are NOT FACISTS! What we see today in America are neoCON Liberals which are Democrats mascarading as Conservatives. There is not difference.

The REAL Republicans of today are the Libertarians

Total horseshit. What an ass-capitalism is not a form of government. Pea brain.

This fellow did some good work on this chart.

I note the presence of "Jesus" on only the Capitalist column. Glad he gave Him at least an honorable mention. This is probably consistent with the overwhelming presence of Christianity during the formation of our nation. And so, I note that this “change” that we are seeing in our government is first of all “spiritual” and secondly it is economic, social, and political. This is why the Capitalism column has all of the good stuff while the other three columns are replete with strife, misery, and man’s godless attempts to create some kind of utopia without the inclusion of godly precepts.

It is therefore useful to note that "Jesus" is conspicuous by His absence as we descend into a totalitarian New World Order (NOW) where all of the other "isms" on the left side are beginning to dominate. We increasingly ignore our both our U.S. Constitution and our God. Millions of us now realize that the current occupant of the oval office is not even constitutionally qualified to be there. But who cares? Nobody looks at the Constitution anymore, and only a few of us pay any attention to The Creator of the universe anymore.

jmw

The Nazi party was not just Fascism !

It was the Nationalist Socialist Party ...

Notice the word: Socialist.

Democrats are being made out to be Communists.
Republicans are being made out to be Nazi Fascists.

Neither are what they are being made out to be by
an unelected group of elitist who own most of the
television, media and etc.. Without most of us knowing
abiut it!

We will get through this if we pull together and stop
believing lies and use "common sense".
Hum ... Thomas Paine wrote a book on that subject ...

Too bad the chart is right.

Well first of all it's great you took the time to produce this. =)

There are problems with it though. First of all, I don't think it's subjective. It is very clear to me that this table was made with a preset opinion in mind, and hence it is slanted a certain way. By that I mean, there is some obvious bias in some of the more opionated sub-headings.

Secondly, it is unclear whether you are describing an ideal state of each idealogy or a state that exists or has existed. By that I mean, are you describing what each idealogy is meant to be in principle or what actually exists. If you are describing in principle, then socialism doesn't restrict your religion, communism does, where as if you are describing the actual reality, then Capitalism you'll see there is no such a free market and the economics are controlled by corporations and financial markets, similar to facism. It seems to me that for communism-socialism-facism you described what had happened in the past (which were failures admittedly), where as with capitalism you described a perfect ideal situation ignoring the very obvious failings of capitalism as it actually exists, which again ties in with my first point.

Third, I'm going to have to point out some of the areas where I disagree with this analysis, and why.

Economics -> There is no such thing as the free market in capitalism. This is one of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. First let's establish what a free market is. A free market should allow you to consume what you wish to consume, to produce what you wish to produce and to trade what you wish to trade.

This doesn't exist. The capital required to produce EVERYTHING is controlled by a small number of people, thus entry to the market is severely restricted. Therefore it isn't free. You can't just make a product you have an idea for and sell it. Not in ideal capitalism, not neo-capitalism, not in ANY form of capitalism. There is no such thing as free market and there never will be as long as there is any form of economic and societal organisation.

Personal Growth -> This is very objective. First of all, there is no definition for "personal growth" given. If you mean "financial growth" then yes, under socialism there is no potential to amass the riches that capitalism tempts you with, under communism in the past, the richest would enrich themselves, and of course in fascism, the corporations can enrich themselves at the expense of poorer people. In Capitalism, there is potential to get very rich, but on the proviso you already have money. Therefore that potential is limited to a select number of people, much like communism and fascism. And like facism, the richest get richer at the expense of poorer people. Most people can only realistically expect a certain amount, that amount being what modern socialists and communists plegdge to offer.

If you mean personal growth as in "social development", yes, under fascism you would be, and historically under socialist and communist regimes, restrictions were placed. But social development under capitalism is curtailed too as we constantly work to please financial markets rather than improving society. Personal growth such as getting an education is limited in capitalism as it requires capital to obtain.

Difficulty of Living in Society -> This category honestly baffles me.

Level of Intelligence Required -> Again, I feel this is bias coming through. First of all, what do you require the intelligence for? The level of intelligence required to live a life and articulate yourself will be the same regardless of socio-economic system. This category is very unclear and vague. I could argue you require no intelligence to get rich in capitalism if you already have capital. Surely that should make "intelligence required" low for that category too.

Level of Freedom -> This is where communism and capitalism come closest. In communism it would seem most decisions are made by a small group of democratically elected representatives. In capitalism it would seem that most decisions are made by a small group of undemocractically elected corporate leaders. They control the way the economy works, and practically have a stranglehold on government. Either way control is in the hands of a small number of people. Socialism is the closest to true freedom in that regard as capital and hence information and decision-making is in the hands of the workers.

Turns into -> You can add "Totalitarian Control" to Capitalism too. Every political idealogy has the potential to become that.

Finally your description of "capitalism"

Law built upon universal principles is practiced by decent, well-educated individuals working on the path of growth. Lesser humans are helped, not enslaved.

I think you'll find socialists, communists, marxists etc. would ALL use that description! I'm afraid that is incorrect. Capitalism is about making money and doesn't care who gets hurt. That is why Africa is still in poverty despite being the most materially rich continent, that is why America has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world.

Thanks for producing this, it certainly is a useful platform for debate, even though I'd would seriously disagree with parts of it.

The author of that chart obviously knows very little about politics. Go and read text books regarding the above. This chart is no where near accurate, nor does it represent the Democrats and Republicans of the United States.

I love how people complain about bias in the chart and then blame everything on the "evil" corporations.

This is a ridiculously stupid argument made by the left wing every chance they get. Because societal ills must be the fault of someone or something, and corporations are far enough beyond the understanding of the worker sheep that keep the left-wing in power, regular complaints about the "Evil Corporations" are sufficient to keep ignorant voters in line. The end result is more left wing socialism, which is precisely the source of the very societal ills blamed on the corporations. I call this "self perpetuating idiocy."

Corporations aren't evil. They aren't a "thing" or a "person" or a "being" and, from the perspective of the government, only exist for tax purposes. Corporations must be taxed before profits are distributed to the workers in the form of payroll, which is then also taxed. And then the workers spend their money and pay sales tax. The remainder goes to fill the coffers of yet more corporations, where the money is taxed yet again for both the new corporation and its workers. The result is a never-ending flurry of taxation on the same money and is exactly equal to inflation unless we find ways to bring wealth in from other nations. Taxation causes inflation.

Corporations are owned by the workers. The vast majority of the ownership of corporations is in the hands of the very workers who have been taught to think that the corporations are evil. Ownership is via the 401Ks that the workers are hoping to see mature (because the left-wing Ponzi scheme known as Social Security is completely incapable of providing a return on the investment). If the workers choose, en masse, to replace the directors of a corporation they certainly can do that. They all have a vote and have the power to do so; but they typically are not capable of thinking for themselves anyway -- look who they voted for!

Corporations are simply a paperwork vehicle by which workers pool their money and put it in the hands of managers that they elect, with the hope that the corporation can use the money to turn a profit and return the worker some gain on his investment.

The bottom line is that without large corporations those workers will never be able to enjoy retirement in their golden years or rest from a lifetime of labor. Corporations are not evil. They are the source of America's success.

People who rail against corporations are either morons or are disingenuous. If they really believe corporations are evil, let them sell their 401Ks and IRAs, donate the money to the poor, and live off the Social Security system that they have created.

Anyone who owns a 401K or IRA and complains about evil corporations is a buffoon, at best.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but haven't been online in a while.

Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was "socialist" and that its enemies were the "bourgeoisie" and the "plutocrats" (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, "On the Jewish Question," Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.

I've posted below what sums up the Nazis' party campaign. It is a good summary of the basic lines of Nazi propaganda. This widely distributed Nazi pamphlet first appeared in 1929. The booklet included five cartoons by Mjölnir, Goebbels’ cartoonist. Mjölnir also produced some of the most familiar Nazi posters.

-----------------------------------------------------

Why Are We Socialists?
The source: Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932).

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!

Why does a superior country have to sell weapons? I hear weapon trafficking is how american capitalists are trying to hold on.In most parts of the world, both the terrorist and the army (in gulf countries) and government and the rebels(in countries having civil wars) have the weapons made in the USA.Is this the capitalist way to create peace in the world????

Dude, you are seriously misinformed. And I respect that it took some time to create that chart but your bias and lack of foundation knowledge is obvious. Your concept of capitalism is similar to what a child understands about Santa from his parents.

Damn I was hoping to get an intelligent view of all these systems but what I got was a Capitalism propaganda piece that is similar to anything where the powerful only want you to think in one way. Please don't waste our time putting crap like this out again we all have had enough of this type of one sided garbage coming from all sides.

Capitalism is not a form of government. It is a term used to characterize an economic system. In a Capitalist system private enterprize is the prized. Pure Capitalism isn't possible because there is no set definitions of terms and, most important, concentration of assets soon warps Capitalism into kleptocism or some other form of plutocratic system. This is something John Galt never told anybody!!!!

I just have to say, this column is a pathetic analysis based entirely in opinion with no understanding of the philosophy of ethics and displaying a sever deficit in the way of analysis. I was hoping for something worthwhile when I found this site, but it really means nothing at all and is more than just biased; it's purely wrong. There is virtually no critical thought being used here, nor any being generated by the readership.

last time i checked, America wasn't with the whole FASCISM idea......

I agree with the chart. I have been thinking exactly the same thing for some time now and I am surprised that someone came up with the same conclusions that I have. I have felt for quite a while now that we are no longer a republic, but we are a fascist state now. The changes were very slow over many decades. Most people have not been paying enough attention to what is happening and don't know enough about history to "connect all the dots".

As someone who wants to run an rpg making points between the different ideologies, and how they'd react to it to see how they TRULY feel the best political policy is... this is good at exposing the subtle differences, but how ultimately they all collapse and change into one form or another. I myself am not afraid to say that I'm willing to take the risks of socialism, communism, or even fascism. My only concern is the revenge against the rights "I've" lost do to private capital preventing me from achieving my dreams, or even daring to have any. Against many assholes who suppressed my opinion, when they were no more vulgar or hateful then what I'm writing right now, just because "it was their forum, and I'm but a guest", and against gays and women. Who I feel are responsible for the vast majority of our social ills.

We're tired, we're depressed, we work so many hours, we're sick and dying because we can't get healthcare, we're unappreciated, and people wonder why some of us wake up, and are mad as hell, and willing to risk it all, just for a little revenge, for a little revolution. Statism works, because it truly expresses the human will to power. Red symbolizing the blood shed, black symbolizing the radical views and passion... We're just mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. We shouldn't have too. That's why people are rioting in the streets, thats why people are shooting each other up, and there's violent crimes. People are not bad. They're just cooped up in their little cages like animals, and then you wonder why they start acting like animals. I don't need to tell you things are bad, you know things are bad. But really, would it hurt that much to just do something crazy, just to insure it doesn't get worse? Nothing makes sense. It's just an insane hamster wheel of debt, hopelessness, and alienation. No one feels like they have anything. They have no ambition, they have no vision, they have no family or friends. All they had is their stupid Xbox, or enough money to get a blow job from some skanky prostitute. This is why I disagree with communists and socialists, they wouldn't do enough to undermine women and gays so mankind has purpose and direction, and I don't trust fascists either, as their interests lie in accumulating power and control, not in the greater good. I'll be publishing a book about this soon.

As far as the rpg goes. Basically it's Dungeons&Dragons. If you ever played D&D, it's like World of Warcraft with books and other materials to construct a character. You got fantasy classes and races to combine, abilities, etc. Real life is not that controllable. Instead, the only control you'd have to not make you completely turned off by this game, is what race and class you are. But there's no guarantee you'll get the abilities you want, or even abilities at all. You may have piss poor stats and unable to properly use them. There'd be tokens for everything. Stat tokens, weapon and items tokens, spell tokens, feat tokens, etc. And classes only offer the probability of higher token ratio in some category. But in reality, it's a lie. It depends on the system I plan to throw at my group.

Capitalism: Everyone gets tokens randomly. Someone could kill the same exact monster, with the same exact race/class, and still get different tokens for it. Oh sure, people can be "charitable", they can "trade" their tokens, they can try and cooperate. Or they can get greedy, they can get powerful, they become so successful that basically they make all the rules, and everyone has to follow along with the one guy's plans or he can easily take on all of them. No "taxes" either. Pure Ayn Rand bullshit. Probably if a character dies, he plans to take his tokens with him.

Socialism: It's still random. But there's more taxation and regulation. Minimum wages, that way you can at least get one token, maximum wages, taxation against those with more tokens and the taxed tokens are distributed according to a voting process or randomly determined who gets the new tax rebate. All in all. It's still basically capitalism. Just capitalism with more arguments at the table as the majority is elves and votes that all taxed tokens go to elves, in real life it'd be reversed where the "minority" gets the tokens. But if they were really the minority, they wouldn't get shit... and usually they don't... It's just more "class warfare", but on a whole new level as people can exploit how they feel fighters are getting more stuff then wizards or whatever.

Fascism: Pretty much like socialism, only every so often, I'll "elect" someone to pick where the tokens go. Much like the corruption in America, we cannot rely on the benevolence of our leaders, and they will more then likely "pocket" the taxed character tokens. Instead of "free trade" people will begin to beg the leader for mercy on a rebate by trading with them specifically, "lobbying". It becomes less about having the best character, and more about convincing the sheep you can make THEM the best character if they just cooperate and do what you tell them. Making every player feel like the DM at some point, and most likely they'll kill each other faster then any other version of this game because they'll get selfish.

Communism: Poverty is created purposely. Every time tokens would be given, they are split as evenly as possible, and they'll like what they get, or be encouraged to turn on those who question the authenticity and purity of this egalitarian token distribution... They can work within this game frame to play variants of communism. Such as Trotskyism, where they CAN trade with each other, but on very limited basis. If there's too much trading going on between two candidates and it is seen as a conspiracy, they will both be punished. Where as Stalinism would tell them to suck it up, and use the tokens they have. Maoism wouldn't even give you your sliver of token all at once. But rather, with the glorified promises of more tokens for all, the first player A gets tokens, then player B gets tokens, and so on and so fourth. More jealously, more discontent, but little they can do about it. Except maybe conspire to kill a team mate and hope his death rewards them with more tokens.

My cheesy one-liner for such a game would be "there ain't no war, but class war". If it wasn't for copyright shit, I'd publish this as a D&D manual. I might be able to use the system reference document of D&D 3.5, which would do just fine.

This chart is hilarious, kids under ten really shouldnt be allowed to use the internet rtfl

i didn't take the time to read the comments but let me say this Communism and Fascism and Socialism ARE NOT THE SAME THING and CAPATALISM is not a form of government its an economic principle that you seem to associate with democracy. Your chart displays the 3 idoelogies that you disagree with in their imperfect corrupted states, and then Deomocracy and capatalism are displayed in a way that is neer the epitemy of thir idoelogies. Anyways back to thedifferences between them
Communism is not ruled by a dictator as a rule, in real communism as is proffessed in the communist manifesto everything is ruled by a collectivist proletariet and no one person is above anyone else. And descision are made collectively and even if not made collectively under communism that is as close to perfect as your dillusions about capatalism individual descisions can be made because the individual does things in the rational interest of the group. Also a centralized bank would not exist as there is no need for currency in sucha society because things of no tangible value are worthless. And there would also be no religon what so ever not even a state religon as it does not produce anything and only corrupts society...
to bored to finish gonna go to sleep but i could go on all day
and no i'm not a communist i'm an anarchist / objectivist so you can't denounce ma as a communist bastard as i to find the idea of communism fundementaly flawed but i have to correct your idiocy slayerment.
PS
Fascism and Socailism/Communsim are close to polar opposites just because america demonizes them doesn't make them similar

The key problem i see with all 4 of these philosophies is that they are all run by man. Because of that, the philosophy that allows the most freedom is abviously the best, since man is a free entity-or he should be. It's a hard sell to see the U.S. as a facist society right now. We have been, and are quickly moving toward a socialist society. Interesting table you have though. This is something we as a country need to discuss more as we try to embrace this Hope And Change thing.

lol this made me laugh

U.S. is not becoming a fasciest state. it really i becoming a socialist state. democrats are mainly libretarians, which want bigger government and more government controlled things. sinc democrats and libritarians are in main control we will most likely become a socialist state. (if anyhtiing). for example, as of riht now, the gov. wants to controll healthcare and it already controlls a lot of power, water, oil, etc. this is how i see it. libritarianism is like a smaller version of socialism. if it keeps up, it will becom socialism. socialism is like a smaller version of communism. once in a socialiastic state, it can esily becom communistic (and vise-versa) i fear that if this libritarian veiw keeps up, we could quickly become soccialist and eventually communist. wich last time i checked, the U.S, was trying to stop. fascism is a whole differert ballpark. as of right now, we are not warlike or highly punishing as a countryy. if you fear a fasciest state then you should probably think about it again. also, though communism has good principals it doesnt work. everybody is equall so nobody wants to work because they still get food clothes etc. (only problem iis that highups are "more equall" then everyone else.) so,communism = broken country. (low wages, very little workers working hard) and dont go all china on me . i personnalyy dont think china is very much communist, i feel it is closer to socialist.

It's a sad state of affairs. I don't believe that America is totally fascist. But, it's definitely not a capitalist state. I used to think capitalism brought nothing but hardship until I took a step out of America for a year. Through my studying, I realized that we are not the capitalist society that Adam Smith described. Adam Smith never preached massive Multi-national corporations. Rather, he preached small business. For small business we need to revert back to small communities. But now, everything is so Globalized. It's ironic, really. Through our Globalization, we have been able to witness its effects on the world and how devastating it has been but the same pattern continues anyway. It's insanity! We have gained so much luxury from corporations that we don't want to sacrifice our comfort for the sake of the others who struggle to give us that comfort for less that $2 a day. We're pigs. We're quasi-fascist/socialist pigs.

I like how everything that is seen as good is put in the column for capitalism and their are no pros for any of the other columns. What people fail to understand is that there must be a balance of what some call "government" and then the privacy or free will of its people. Just like good and evil, there cannot be a completely good human or a destructive all powerful evil human being.

First off this chart has to be a joke. Do you realize how bias this is. I get the point that you dont understand the potential of improved ideas. Do you even know what a socialism is? Also a facsism has to do more with the ruler not the economy. Holy shit you said a communism is ruled by a dictator! Just fyi a communism is ruled by a singe elite party. A socialism can be run by anything I say. A capitalism is ruled by numerous parties. As far as religious freedoms that has absolutley nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, or communism. I was hoping i'd find something interesting not some bullshit bias half ass chart. In case you are wondering I am not a communist or any of the above. What we all should do is take the qualities of Communism and capitalism to put together something better. Like a socialism, except with a capitalist twist. I hope you aren't an adult cause I'm a sophomore in high school and the little I know about these subjects is still more than you. hilarious

How the fuck is Obama a socailist.

Only an American can put up a diagram like this :-)
No is not accurate at all. Unfortunately you lack the basic knowledge of the four systems you try to analyse. To a left wing communist or socialist the Democrats in the US are pretty right wing. It is funny what you guys call left wing or communist. If you only knew. If I'd draw the left-wing, centre, right wing spectrum and compare it between Europe and USA I'd draw it like this:

Europe: Extreme Left----------------------------C----------------------------Extreme Right
USA: Democr.--------Repub.

Totally bias only claims that capitalism is perfect - it is not ! Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would be socialists today, they predated the system. Western Europe had hundreds of near constant warfare under capitalism. Now under socialism they have had peace. There is little difference between fascism and capitalism, both are the evilness of militarism.

i think that communist is perfect but it dose need a few tweaks like freedom and any rights but the idea of being equal in other terms like finance etc is a positive of communism

I think you are a bitter person. Things are not as bad as you are making them out to be.
Sure, Obama leans toward Socialism, but he's learning. Sure Bush was a Fascist, but that doesn't make the entire country Fascist. Sure America has gone through some weird times since Bush became president, but I think we are growing out of that. I think Capitalism still exists in limited ways, and people like me are all for it. Don't be down about it, things will get better.
I have a lot of faith in the future generations because of their access to information through the Internet and the Social Networks. Things are changing already, can't you tell? If we all pitch in and do our part, telling our reps what we want, if we all work towards freedom, we can do it. Don't give up.

can you explain hoe capitalism is noy in the world today? Every single EU country is capitalist?

I generally agree with the chart. With our government schools, transportation, healthcare, military empire, and central bank with it's currency monopoly, there's no way modern day American should be considered Capitalist. The money was the big step. Once the bankers got the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 passed, that was the end of the Old Republic. Government has grown bigger ever since.

halleriously stupid chart, recommend you look up definitions of words in your chart as its completely wrong, don't blame you though, iknow USA education is dreadful, arrogant retards

Historically the soviet union under stallin was slightly fascist, It is worth pointing out you obviously have no idea what communism is, it is an equal society with no class based on meritocracy, everybody is equal working for the common good and decisions are made by the populations will, look up marxism. Communism in today's society isn't possible because the human race hasn't evolved enough as a society and it's people, we have witnessed altered and failed versions.

Nazi germany was socialist, Hitler was elected and favoured a national run economy. Only in the final month when the war was to be lost, could you even attempt to suggest it was fascist.

Amused your comment praising capitalism includes the death penalty, america and china have the highest by miles in the world, and most the world don't have it, china can eb excused to a large extent, having over a billion habitants though.

religion- 'humanism' 'state sponsored'mamde me laugh that one did. humanism???, pretty sure they all allow ANY religion, fascist varying depending on views.
'level of self responsibility' How are they all low and USA is high? makes no sense, as everybody besides communism requires money to survive at a decent standard.
Soviet union had rediculous personal growth i.e roman abromovich. UK has some of the leading business entrepreneurs.
'Inteligence' Hate to burst your bubble but as somebody who has studied education, america has one of the lowest educations in the developed world, obviously excluding the elite.
'ran by' you have communism as, dictator showing you completely have no clue once again. The reality is socialists in reality all come from wealthy upper class backgrounds..as do capitalists.
'freedom' made from no basis what so ever to make america look good, same applies to 'creativity' god' USA were the last to stop slaves, and would sterilise 'stupid' or disabled people as recent as the 50's woo amazing freedom, also the only country to nuke...civilians.

'moral' is the completely wrong way round as capitalism reduces it with the self ambition/interest of greed and wealth.

You have known about your errors for some time now so correct your chart?

On a personal level, I believe capitalism is complete evil, no logic on running an economy based on consumer goods as it leads to wasted resources. Capitalism is dog eat dog cut throat, stepping on each other to reach the top as the ones below stump to poverty and die, with no help, ironic seing as america is supposed to be cristian. Private business leads to giant corporations that corrupt every piec eof society, USA goverment has been corrupt since Kennedys assasination if you ask me. Admittedly this also happens in today's ssocialism but this is a result of the capitalist market. Unofrtunately the fox news and american culture have them so patriotised it's scary with so much propoganda, stay away from fox news. USA is ran by fat cats, unbelievably corrupt, are an empire in denial, why does the rest fo the world hate them, are they really ignorant stupid fat and arrogant? No, but some are!

Though it took me several hours to read through the posts above, I want to thank the participants for the lively discussion, and from a more objective point of view than perhaps those arguing back and forth, what i notice is that the notion of developmental hierarchy (vs dominator) is at play here. First of all the table is very helpful, and though I disagree with some of the categorization, it is obviously not set in stone and simply serves as a framework for hopefully respectful discussion. In a developmental hierarchy, though we humans are all created equal with inalienable human rights endowed by the Creator, we must acknowledge that some behaviors are more wholesome than others and lead to wholly positive change and a less divided state (internally as reflected in our actions and words and externally as reflected in culture. And from a developmental point of view, Slayerment rises to the top of the developmental hierarchy here, as he cares to be respectful to others, even in the face of extreme rudeness and name-calling, he cares to write with proper grammar, spelling and punctuation, and his ideas are progressive and clearly based on much study of the subject. I have never met any of the participants and do not know them in any 7nt3eway, but I thought the the distinction between developmental and dominator hierarchy (based on Clare Graves and Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics model) was appropriate here, as well as evident.

Is it possible to use our real names? It is more difficult for me to take "anonymous" as seriously as someone courageous enough to identify self.

There's a big difference between National Socialism (NAZI Party) vs. Socialism. It's time the people of the USA get an education.

capitalism is a socio economic policy for idiotic propogised retards.
Consumerism based on wasted resources with no social goal besides a class divide between a few rich and mass poverty. Most popularly summerised by south, inbred, republican, outdatedness funded by huge unethical corporations and deals for sponsoring and law changes. It ignores all it's flaws in the shout of competition which is as futile as a country so economically powerful and rich with massive resources wasted within a petty century. I'll giove you a hint this great country of liberty not long ago sterilised the disabled and poor and the military nowingly inflected over 400 soldiers with diseases like test rats

I think the worst thing isn't the completely over the top couldn't be any more bias chart. It is your adamant belief in it that you are right that is the worst thing. Enough people have shown quite blatently in so many respects how wrong it is in every way, yet it is just dismissed. It brings me to the conclusion that the CIA have had you brainwashed, you are of severe low mental intelect or finally that you get things set in your head and your arrogance and ego completely overide all ability to reason and be logical.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. The worst thing about it is I expect you are not one of the 1% who benefit from the laissez-faire capitalist system. The system works because it convinces people to tolerate it in the belief they will one day be rich too. Social democracy is about the redistribution of wealth through tax rebates, national health care etc, not everyone living in hovels. Can you not see how unchecked corporations and democracy don't work together. Capitalism in it's current state isn't working, because it is elitist, capitalism doesn't need to go, it needs to be fixed.

Our professor favored authoritarianism, the one which includes communism and fascism. He does not favor on democracy wherein capitalism and socialism fall under. He said that for a country to be developed and for its people to be disciplined, there is a need of force. Because if we stick on democracy, people would just 'take for granted' the freedom and their human rights. Can u give me a broader opinion about this? I'm a freshman college student and I want to know more about economic systems.

What form of government do we have? Do you really know? If you think we are a democracy, you really need to watch this video for a reality check.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&fe

1. Reasserting American Exceptionalism. The Founding Fathers believed in American Exceptionalism because we are the only country in history that recognizes that power comes from God to each citizen personally. The citizen is personally sovereign. The citizen then loans power to the state. The state does not loan power to the citizen. This is the opposite of Obamaism.

2. Competing with China and India. We must commit ourselves to undertaking the necessary reforms so that we can become the most productive, most creative, and most prosperous country in the world. These economic requirements are our basis for a national security system that enables us to be the safest and freest country worldwide. If we take seriously the importance of competing with China and India, we will be the dominant country on the planet for the next hundred years. However, if we do not have the courage to compete with China and India, we will rapidly cease to be safe and will rapidly cease to be free. Rather than complaining about how China and India have saved their money, maintained trade surpluses, and weathered the economic crisis well, as President Obama has done, we must focus on how we can reform ourselves dramatically.

3. Ending the Bubble of Government. Government is too big, too expensive, too in debt, and it is not going to want to change. Like the information technology bubble in 1999, the housing bubble in 2007, and the Wall Street bubble in 2008, the fourth bubble that is government threatens our economy. Government employee unions are the new elite, and we need a replacement model.

4. Telling the Truth About Radical Islamism. The Obama administration is living in a fantasy world; they won’t tell the truth about our enemies. We must have the courage to tell the truth about radical Islamists, and we must have the courage to act on that truth. We must identify our opponents, be honest about the scale of the threat, and undertake a grand strategy to defeat radical Islamism.

5. Empowering Every American to Pursue Happiness. Since we truly believe that every American is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights – among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – then we must be determined to go into our country’s poorest communities, whether it is in the valley, the inner city, or poor, rural areas. We must change the culture; we must change the bureaucracy; we must change the tax code; we must do whatever it takes to ensure that every American is truly capable of pursuing happiness, as they have been endowed by their Creator with that right. When conservatives are truly serious about all American citizens having the right to pursue happiness, we will create a 75% majority, and we will be able to offer our children and grandchildren a vastly better future than the bureaucratic welfare state of dependency, coercion, and ineffectiveness we face today.

With a movement of citizens all across this land, we can replace the Left and bring America back to the country it should be.

I noted in your chart, that you omitted the republican form of government. That is to be expected, since there is only one nation on Earth with that form, and it was abandoned in the 1820s for the democratic form.

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

FYI: Citizens are subjects, by definition. There is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen". But there are sovereign American people (non-citizen nationals).

Fascism = Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for everyone else
; P

I totally agree that capitalism is the best economically but you also have to include the fact that capitalism promotes greed. All i am saying is that there comes a point when capitalism becomes harmful for the common good of everyone and that regulations are necessary for the protection of the common. Socialism isn't really that all bad because they protect the common interest of everyone (spreading the wealth is not evil).

I'm not a socialist and I really like capitalism but can't the two co-exist. Can't they socialize needs and capitalize wants so that everyone else get's a piece of the cake even if they only get enough for living. Just a thought.

The thing about "lesser human" that is really not cool. It's totally subjective but still, calling non-american lesser is really bad. I mean what does one takes to actually be more culturally superior than others? Is it because they affect other cultures so that makes them superior? If that is what you are saying then I agree about antispin's arguments. I'm not going to debate. Calling other humans lesser is morally wrong period. I'm american and white but i like other cultures (I will not point out a specific one). And honestly speaking, the only reason why america have its own cultural identity is because of the collection of other cultures from other nations and put it together to bring out a new one. So actually the culture you are talking about is a piece of everyone else's culture and that doesn't make you a superior human.

My advice, refrain from referring to humans as lesser. I suggest you call them less fortunate to avoid some raising of eyebrows in the future.

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)

Your chart is good. A little biased but good. Two problems with your chart. The Nazis were not fascists. They were an ideology all there own who combined different elements from many different ideologies such as socialism, fascist, and capitalism but they were not pure fascist. The second is that capitalism is not a form of government but an economic system.

Holy shit. This really worries me.

this is all a lie, this has been done by right wing people!
the god of capitalism is MONEY not universe and no one cares about the person in a capitalism world, if you have money youre the boss and if you dont no one gives a shit and you die under a bridge;

best yes, ahahah Bush was a facist.
an by the way in facism there are DICTATORS not companies!!!

Fuck your chart. That is your fucking true my friend, it isnt the absolute true. Capitalism make the poor poorest, of course, you can see that in your declining gringo civilization. The poor people dont know the meaning of Liberty, when in this centruy already work as slaves for a meaningless pay, can you live with less than 4 dolares one day? can you built your future with that pay? Fuck!! I am so happy that this egoism (liberty is the way you call it) behind of your wonderful capitalism is turning back and today america isnt that was in the past, maybe in a few years we will be talking in chinese and the english i learn in a peruvian school (where i am from) will be useless. I am not saying capitalism worst or socialism the best, what i am trying to say is any of these -isms is working.

Fuck your chart. That is your fucking true my friend, it isnt the absolute true. Capitalism make the poor poorest, of course, you can see that in your declining gringo civilization. The poor people dont know the meaning of Liberty, when in this centruy already work as slaves for a meaningless pay, can you live with less than 4 dolares one day? can you built your future with that pay? Fuck!! I am so happy that this egoism (liberty is the way you call it) behind of your wonderful capitalism is turning back and today america isnt that was in the past, maybe in a few years we (including you hahah) will be talking in chinese and the english i learn in a peruvian school (where i am from) will be useless. I am not saying capitalism worst or socialism the best, what i am trying to say is any of these -isms is working.

Fuck your chart. That is your fucking true my friend, it isnt the absolute true. Capitalism make the poor poorest, of course, you can see that in your declining gringo civilization. The poor people dont know the meaning of Liberty, when in this centruy already work as slaves for a meaningless pay, can you live with less than 4 dolares one day? can you built your future with that pay? Fuck!! I am so happy that this egoism (liberty is the way you call it) behind of your wonderful capitalism is turning back and today america isnt that was in the past, maybe in a few years we will be talking in chinese and the english i learn in a peruvian school (where i am from) will be useless. I am not saying capitalism worst or socialism the best, what i am trying to say is any of these -isms is working. And for the record, if you say that the worst genocide was made for socialism i can tell the worst age of slavery was made for your country and your capitalism..... thank the time is showing new ways of growing, China and Brasil can tell, and poor people are know standing up and spitting in the face of the people who though were their owners,

This is one of the most innacurate, biased and stupid charts that I have ever seen. Please read an actual book on the subject instead of relying on Bill O'Reily and Glen Beck for your information.

Look at those rose-colored glasses.This author acknowledges no downsides to capitalism, unashamed in his indoctrination. Complete, unchecked capitalism is totalitarianism with a different name. I'd love to hear how the author determined that western Europeans are relatively ignorant and have arrested personal growth compared to the superior, "well-educated" and "decent" Americans with fantastic "personal growth."

Actually...no I read for about teen minutes and lost half my political IQ I hope you realize how stupid this is. That's like saying a hue and a shade are the same because they are both visible I hope nobody took thus graph seriously..

I am so impressed with your discussion, Quinton. You clearly have done some research and I agree with you. Some of these half-wits that reply to you are scary and ignorant and so inept in their debate with you that they are laughable. I say RIGHT ON to your page here (I just came across it) and applaud you for taking on some of these people who are so unrealistic.

Wow, you are a serious moron. Lol at this chart. I'm a high school history teacher and this doesn't even belong in a special ed class!

This has to be a troll site.

Its called Agenda:Grinding Down America .. Its a very well done documentary on the progression of Communism and Fabianism is America.

We have a high school teacher calling someone a moron for expressing their view and saying it doesn't belong in a special Ed class. With educators like this how could anything we say as young adults be wrong. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. We need to get back to the basics before we discuss how societies should be run!

I have a couple of things here.....I'm a disappointed because I thought that I would get some real information, instead of the normal clap trap that is spewed from the disembodied voices of talk radio. This report is biased and possily inflammatory. Let me start by saying that if Obama is a Socialist, then he isn't very good at it. Then there is the "intelligence requirement"....this is just wrong because some of the most educated people of the 20-21st century have favored some form of socialism in varying degrees, while full on nothing but capitalism and and america is exceotional has been militantly favored by the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Then the how it was implemented, the "US" colonists very often were on the offensive....they actually fired the first shots and committed the first acts of war....just one example. Also throughout the last let's 10 years, if not more, certain parties and groups in the American culture have actually become ferociously nationalistic, which is more in line with Nazism,,,(ie the tea party and the GOP)

Vincent: The intelligence requirement is not wrong, if I might explain. It's not talking about 'some individuals' as you referenced, it's talking about the whole and what it takes to survive. In a capitalistic setting, you (everyone) needs to be all they can be; whereas, in most of the others you can be (please excuse) just a taker. And of course in these other forms, there are intellectuals .... they're usually the power folks, the very few rich folks and all the other's can kiss it goodbye. Now, I've probably po'd ya but ... hey, you should read the book: "THEY FIRED THE FIRST SHOT 2012"

Why use big words like 'communism', 'socialism,'fascism' & 'capitalism' when you clearly have little idea what they mean?

The whole article you wrote is based on the propaganda of the mass media, following McArthy's bullshit.
At first you confuse basic things:
Fascism is a political system, it's a certain form of capitalism. Capitalism or socialism/communism are socio-economic systems.
Where did you see socialism in Western Europe?. If you call socialism the scandinavian capitalist model, then..oooooohh.
Communism never existed, it requires the absence of money as an exchanging mean.
Except of all this, capitalism didn't work, doesn't work, will never work.
Prepare for the next step of the human society: socialism. (not the one you think you know...)

Economics:: Capitalism is private ownership and Control.
Communism = Socialism; is Government ownership and control.
Fascism is private ownership and government control.
All exist to varying degrees in all economic systems
Totalitarianism, exists to varying degrees in Communism and Fascism

Communism where the Government owns the means of production,resources,banking and speech is restricted.Sound familiar ? The USSA.The FED is the biggest consumer, creditor, debtor, manufacturer,banker in the nation.The Government is NOT supposed to compete with it’s citizens in business.For if that happens ,wealth is stolen from them and that is happening as I type.When the government can do what the people can not you have tyranny. I see all of the above and it SUX just like fat Karl himself.

ok, i have nowhere near the time required to even start corrected this table, whomever made it knows nothing to very little about the topic, and it is sad that some people will actually read this and give it any type of credit. We can start by the fact many communist societies still exist, and go from there to the idea of the Illuminati having any type of involvement in the formation of communism. If you believe that a group of millionaires started a communal economy you have brain damage. I had to quit reading this propaganda, for the simple fact each line i read made me feel as if i was killing brain cells. Karl Mark created communism as it was presented in "the capital" and "the communist manifesto" Unless you have read these you have no business smearing the name of communism. If you haven't noticed capitalism in its current form has led to fascism in America if not a large section of the world. You don't live in a democracy if you have to be a millionaire to be elected... Capitalism in its current form was actually created by the monarchs at the end of feudalism to fight the rising merchant class. By this i mean corporate charters, which are the foundations of modern corporations. Who originally had corporate charters granted by kings giving them monopolies. You can read more about this is the book "life inc." It's sad to see you trying to misinform the public like this my best guess would be that your paid to do so by certain political parties, I really hope that you are not actually this misinformed yourself, if you are, stop asking ignorant people for answers and open a freaking book.

NOTE TO ANYONE READING THE ABOVE IT IS ALMOST ENTIRELY INACCURATE, DON'T BE MISINFORMED BY PEOPLE WITH AGENDAS RESEARCH THE SUBJECTS YOURSELF. CAPITALISM CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT SOCIALISM IN IT. CAPITALISM ALSO LEADS TO FASCISM, NOT BY DESIGN PER SAY, BUT FIND A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR THE SENATE IN THE US WHO IS WORTH LESS THAN 200,000$, WHILE THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IS LUCKY TO MAKE 30,000 IN A YEAR. COMMUNISM HAS IT'S PROBLEMS, BUT THE USSR HAD ONE OF THE MOST EDUCATED POPULATIONS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, THE US BY COMPARISON HAS ONLY 22% WITH EVEN BACH DEGREES COMPARED TO THE USSR WHERE THE AVERAGE CITIZEN HAD A BACH MORE LIKELY A PHD. THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THESE SYSTEMS IS CORRUPTION CAPITALISM ALLOWS FOR THE MOST CORRUPTION OUTSIDE OF FASCISM.

In debating socialism and communism Quinton has started a great forum that now needs to delves deeper into technologies such as shown in Futurescape and first discussed in Bill Joy's Wired Magazine article of March 2000. I also suggest reading C. H. Douglas and trying to grasp the Physiocrats. They were much more than just a continuation of an ancient Order now called the NWO.

This is the single most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Or at least, that I have read since being able enough to read.

I see a slight bias towards capitalism, and against modern America. Now, in all honesty i would agree with that statement, but you really should work to make it unbiased, if you want to build credibility.

USA IS NOT FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!1 We are capitalist. This is soooo biased.

I see what your saying in the chart I guess. All I want say is if any of you who live in the USA and, you want the original government that our founding fathers placed for us. Then please vote libertarian! From I can see for myself libertarians are true to what America was ment to be. Don't believe what you're told that you only have two people to choose from. I really hate how most people argue about Republican or Democrats being the only choice you have come voting time. You have a choice and you're not throwing your vote away if you vote for another party. It is better to vote for who you want and he/she not win. Then to vote for someone you don't and they win.

What we really need is libertarian socialism, the marrying of both political and economic liberty. Why is it that the US seems to think it invented capitalism? Capitalism is simply consolidated wealth used as leverage to exploit the property-less underclass, and has existed since time immemorial. The glory days of American liberty and opportunity where only due to the fact that it hadn't enough time to develop into a mature capitalist society like its contemporary Europe. It took it until the gilded age to catch up. I have a lot of respect for libertarians, they hold a rare spirit in these slavish times, but they must see that the private consolidation of wealth and power by corporations and their authoritarian nature is as harmful as any state -as feudalism was to monarchy.

It is not voluntary. Does a man choose to be born into his life, or is it thrust upon him? A man may choose to turn down an unfavourable situation, but at what cost to him? The man born into poverty must choose labour or starvation because turn where he may there exists no better options. Yes, state intervention exaggerates monopolies, but capitalism is fundamentally monopolistic, as is seen in practice. To say that free agreement is all that is necessary to ensure equality, and hence liberty, is to ignore all those externalities that are thrust upon a man: flood, famine, pestilence, birthright and social privilege to name but a few.

You are conflating innovation with capitalism. The desire to meet his own needs, and for the betterment of his environ in this pursuit, is an innate aspect of man, inherent in all forms of social organisation. However, under capitalism the dispossessed class are persuaded by hunger and poverty to forgo future gains for the satisfaction of their immediate needs. How can a system which mandates the continual poverty and oppression of the masses, and which requires them to surrender the majority of the fruits of their labour, through no fault of theirs, be the best system for them? That which is best at meeting their needs?

The profit motive itself is also unable to efficiently meet the needs of society, and how can it where its only objective is profit? Market demand can only meet needs where backed by coin, and where there exists a impoverished underclass, the market remains largely blind to a large portion of society. Where profit seeking is advanced, society becomes run as an adjunct to the economy, and to the vanity of those in power.

Although not long enough in duration for any measurable results, the anarchist territories of the Spanish Revolution showed promise of a system far more "efficient" from the perspective of the provision of needs for the WHOLE society.

As to capitalism not being fundamentally monopolistic you are right. What I meant rather is that it has monopolistic aspirations, though in practice rarely achieves any more than oligopoly. This still produces notable market perversions.

Libertarian socialism, and communism in its true form is vastly different from the "communism" we know from Russia, China etc. I will gladly concede the superiority of capitalism to these forms of authoritarian socialism. True socialism preaches worker ownership of the means of production and the full fruits of labour. State socialism is rather a Bolshevik lie to derail the revolution and found a new and even more oppressive statist regime. Just ask Makhno.

Capitalism can never allow the working class to enjoy the full fruits of their labour as its fundamental basis is the private ownership of capital ABOVE what is needed to meet ones own needs, and therefore allows the renting of capital to others less fortunate in order to extract profits.

Libertarian socialists preach that ownership can only come from continuing personal use, you can own a house, car and tools, but you cannot own a factory. Means of production comes under usufruct, where goods made personally for personal consumption are held in absolute.

Unless you can show how externalities, as discussed before, do not affect a man, this remains the only means of ensuring all men have the same opportunity in life. Without equality of opportunity, a man is forced by circumstance to make compromises. Where economists generally see interest as reward for waiting, it is better understood as the ABILITY to wait, as poor people prefer bread to any minor financial gains. Anarchists preach only equality of opportunity, not outcome, and we are as loathe to such issues as taxation and the welfare state as any, though for very different reasons to the self-interest of the right.

The profit motive, as said before, remains blind to the needs of those unable to pay on the market. This would not be so bad in a society of economic equality, but capitalism promotes inequality and so exaggerates the problem.

The alternative I would propose is some form of libertarian socialism, with the end goal of TRUE communism (you are right to oppose Stalinist-style socialism). It would be easier to read Wikipedia than have me explain its fundamental concepts.

Capitalism does not allow individuals to enjoy the full fruits of their labour, as stated before. Profits simply represent surplus labour. Where there exists profit of the type an employee receives, as distinct from the profits of an independent producer, there exists an employee from which produce has been skimmed.
Rents too represent unearned income, which derives ultimately from the labour of the exploited, itself of no tangible worth. Were the tenants around when the property was bought, or was this another disadvantage thrust upon them which they could never consent? You still have not refuted my point about externalities.

A man can produce as much as he likes, and do with it what he pleases, but not where he uses his favourable situation to exploit or harm others as private property allows. Private property allows a man, and later his progeny, to not only enjoy his right to use a thing, but to prevent others, both contemporary and future generations, from using it. If the population of an island was 10, and it was divided so, but later became 1000, why is it fair that latter generations were born landless? Did they consent?

Your statement about opportunity pertains to equality of outcome, not opportunity. Opportunity can be embraced or not, outcome is still very much a variable. This is in contrast to the lack of opportunity inherent for the many in capitalism. This can be clearly evidenced in social mobility. As it is not perfect we can assume the context of a persons social and economic standing is hugely important in shaping overall outcome.

In a libertarian socialist society a capitalist could own a factory, but only if he built it entirely himself and it harmed no-one in doing so, and only on land enough for him. Nor would anyone work there if they were assured a livelihood. Capitalism can only exist on the basis on an unequal distribution of goods, guaranteed by the unequal distribution and perpetuation of private property rights that allows a minority to claim ownership of property above what he needs, and so deprive others of what they need.

Mechanisation is a doubled edged sword. Employee conditions largely depend on how much power he has. Where labour is cheap and unorganised, poor conditions result. Mechanisation can lead to the dispensation of the worker, who having to still buy the goods he formerly made, must seek new employment as a servant for his boss, at largely reduced pay. Generally resulting in lower consumption of goods as the new oppressive work outweighs in discomfort any financial remuneration. Where the workers own the technology, the profits can be realised by them in full and results in increased consumption and material well-being, lower working hours and increased leisure.

A man is forced into capitalism. Can he choose to alter his birthplace? Is their an unending expansion of new free land (which has not been won by the sword)? And if no countries practice anything but capitalism?

For capitalists, finding employees in an anarchist society would be next to impossible, especially in light of the resistance to all those heavy handed deprivations needed to force free men into the estates and factories historically. Two parallels are the southern owning of slaves and the Australian convicts (my own country). Workers were reluctant to work for capitalists in the face of opportunity elsewhere due to low land values. Capital simply shifted from investment in land, as in Europe, to people, because free men could not be compelled to work where opportunity elsewhere was abundant.

I could no more practice anarchism in an ancap society than I could in our contemporary one. This is because the market has already been saturated, and I have been born into an already developed system. If I have the non-voluntary misfortune to be born poor, to buy property, I must work on exploitative terms. Furthermore, how can a system that preaches the abolishment of private property exist in a system of private property? Is the land already owned by those who have taken it unfairly (state allocation, warfare etc), or does it revert to non-ownership for homesteading, cities and all?

The specific case can only be decided by the democratic decision of those individuals affected by them, the local population. The likely outcome would be the gradual subdivision of land as more individuals practise their usage rights. Land use would likely transition from low density techniques such as pastoralism to intensive agriculture. Alternately the pastures may be simply collectivised to be shared if all are in agreement. This is assuming the 10 ever claimed usage over all the land, instead possibly holding large tracts in non-ownership for hunting and forestry etc.

The theoretical foundation is the equal access to those things which no man, or no one man had made, and which are finite in supply. Where products are finite such as land, to increase your personal supply is to deny other theirs. A man can take only what he needs (as balanced with the needs of others, he may have to sacrifice in periods of shortage), but in practice he may take also what he wants over this, only until the time it is contested by another.

This in contrast with the manufacture of goods. As goods are largely infinite, resource bottlenecks the exception, to produce more harms no-one. This is the fundamental difference between the two, and the reason why holding all things in dominion as in capitalism leads to injustice and inequality, and so the oppression of the many.

Libsoc limits the freedom of an individual to those acts which cause no unequal limitation to the freedom of others. Libsoc, unlike Ancap, restricts the individual to only positive liberties. Ancap permits such negative freedoms as could in theory include slavery & dominion over other people, as well as things like forced abortions. This is all granted in the law of "free agreement" and contract rights, of which you haven't yet addressed my claims as to why they can never be truly consensual.

Yes, Libsoc limits the freedom of the individual, but only in the sense of those actions which are harmful to, or limit the freedom of others.

Libsoc recognises the right of independence in decision making and actions of any person or group from any person or group on the condition they do not affect said people. Where decisions are made, only those affected by them have the right to have say, and may disassociate from the larger group at any time.

You argument ignores the fact that property rights are in themselves an act of aggression as individuals born later cannot possibly give their consent to the actions of previous generations, but are met with violence in the name of self defence should they challenge them. It is simply a covert form of aggression, as are the many such examples in capitalism responsible for the shaping of a man's environ, and of which have no basis in "natural laws", but are simply rules decided before his ability to give consent, that he is now bound.

So too are the constitutional laws of Libsoc, as men are indeed forced to surrender all negative rights and to adhere unquestioningly to the positive right of usufruct. It is possible for a group of individuals to agree to run their community on capitalist or other principles, but new immigrants from the surrounding anarchist confederacy would likely not have to adhere if they should wish to dissociate, the constitution overriding local law. This is an area I have not thought about much and reserve the right to change my mind, and to admit an anarchist society might differ in practice.

Again, neither social systems can exist within the other, This stems from their respective stances on private property. But each can exist within the other in a weak sort of compromise that does neither justice.

Usage rights allow the equalisation of difference between regions more or less abundant in the means of production.
Where the region is rich in productive capacity, population will settle at a higher density, where barren, the population remains sparse.

Say there is a community practising the lucrative fracking of underground kfc gravy reserves. While the community reserves the right to non-cooperation, they are required to allow outsiders to practice their usage rights, the density of workers likely, but not necessarily, finding its natural level in the equal opportunity elsewhere. Management of the reserve, as elsewhere, is dictated by the right to do as one pleases as long as it harms none, with the requirement of democratic say for those it does.

This is assuming the region has not already transitioned to the moneyless gift economy of communism.

Libsoc is not centralised state socialism. It is a decentralised system of independent, bottom-up democratic organisations. Also known as anarchism, it has no centralised authority whatsoever. This is opposed to capitalism which is authoritarian, centralised within the organisation, and top-down. If choosing which mini-dictator among an ocean of fiefdoms is not coerced central control, then I don't know what is.

It is both highly rational and PROVEN, as seen in the Spanish Revolution, where millions practiced anarchism of some sort, some even the moneyless gift economy of communism, and not only did it work, it prospered despite the hardship of the war against the fascists.

I think each of us has said all that could be said about our respective beliefs. Unless you have anything more to add, I suggest we conclude our debate. Its been fun.

Funny how 4 years later that Capitalism column is fraught with inconsistencies. Education = low. Free market = what's that? Personal growth = *see infrastructure and decline of middle class. Level of freedom = tapped. Level of intelligence = *see Congress. Government run by = Capitalist elites. Level of Moral required = none. Ruled by = oligarchy.

They're saying, "The column is not as you made it out to be and has changed as follows". Which I completely agree with. Why is it you glorify capitalism? You included old uses of it, but not present day altered capitalism. Also, Socialist countries don't have low education, responsibility or self growth. Actually, Socialist countries have higher IQ than capitalist countries and their self drive is no more or less than any other individual in any country.
They also have the freedom to believe in whatever they want; their governments take no part in their personal beliefs.

I'm sorry but your whole chart is pretty ignorant and bias.

I highly doubt that author has any knowledge about any difference between socialism and communism. Have you ever visit any country except your own?
Next, this table is made upon no real data, it's just a personal "feeling" or view.

I am appalled at the fact that so many people are loaded with opinions...without having gathered the facts. Most people are unaware that nearly all democracies are at least partially Socialism, including the USA. e.g. Public Schools, Libraries, Police Depts, Fire Depts, Roads & Bridges, etc. Since most of these comments go back at least 5 years, it is my hope that more people have become informed about the fact that although Capitalism at first means Freedom, but eventually all of the wealth is acquired by a tiny % of the people. Today 400 Billionaires out of 320 Million Americans own most of the mega-corporations and pretty much call all the shots. The Billionaires have been bribing our politicians to vote in their favor instead of for the People which has caused serious struggles for the middle class. The only solution is for the American people to demand: PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FUNDING for all qualified candidates...and absolutely NO PRIVATE CAMPAIGN FUNDING. Only then wil we get our country back.

the Republican party is not Fascistic, but the Democrats are as well as Socialist, and Communist

Democrats are also Fascistic, not Republicans

Wow this article, as well as most of the commenters, is tremendously ignorant.
Next time try learning about the countries, governmental, and economic systems before writing anything.

For starters:
-while economic systems are often strongly tied to government (and even enabled through them), strictly speaking they are not forms of government. IE, capitalism is not a form of government, nor is socialism. communism and fascism are both less pure than the previous being partially governmental in nature (and having more in their definition that just an economic theory).

-you've confused a free market economy with capitalism, and a managed market with socialism, treating as synonyms when they are not the same. you can have socialist free markets and capitalist managed economies.

Socialism simply means that the means of production are owned by 'socially', and operated for everyones benefit/gain. This frequently involves the use of a democratic government (but not necessarily) under the theory that the government is an abstract representation of the will of the people and only gets its power by the peoples consent (as opposed to dictatorships (power through might), monarchies and theocracies (power by god's will), or others). (Again: economic model, not governmental. Different governmental models have different views of the relation ship between citizen and government.)

Communism takes this a step farther and says 'common ownership', ie by all the people without the abstract middle layer of government. In practice this has been managed by a very authoritarian government without any democratic input (ie, totalitarian/authoritarian). Communism also includes elements of nationalism (unlike socialism and capitalism).

Capitalism means the mean of production is owned 'privately " and operated for private gain. This can be done with both free markets and managed markets. It also frequently involves a democratic government, but again, not always.

Fascism is not socialism. Nor is it capitalism. It operates in a middle ground and (like communism) is not a pure a economic model. It is the marriage of business (ie, capital) with government, typically with government serving the interests of business. The government, rather than being a reflection of the will of the people, carries out the will of business. And in this model it is the duty of citizens to also operate for the benefit of those businesses (also implies very extreme nationalist tendencies). (sounds rather like the US?)

So...Fascism isn't socialism. there are similarities from the organizational structure, but the relationships between the pieces and the goals of the systems are totally different.

Probably good to throw in another definition here, means of Production: "physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value, such as facilities, machinery, tools, infrastructural capital and natural capital." This means both instruments of labor (tools, machinery) and subjects of labor (raw materials). It does not include labor itself (ie, workers).

Capitalism works well for the growth of an economy not dissimilar to evolution, where the fittest survive.
but it has many rough edges, and one of its results is it tends to not benefit everyone. And the people it does benefit tends to shrink while also benefit those people more and more over time. IE, growing inequality of wealth as it leaves behind the people at the edges, and those edges are constantly shrinking. This makes it self destructive over time

Socialism works well for ensuring everyone benefits and shares the fruits of their labor. But it can be stagnant over time.

Both systems tend to operate best under democratic governmental systems (when used under more autocratic or authoritarian systems they tend to devolve).

Thus the (so far) best compromise system: democratic socialism aka socialized capitalism.
-The market is largely a free market, but with regulation and management where needed or logical, such as natural monopolies.
-The economic model is largely capitalist, with private ownership, but it includes a strong social safety net to prevent (or reduce) the self destructive qualities of capitalism that otherwise leave people behind. Certain things are also socialized, like the common defense (military, police, medicine).
-The governmental model is democratic, and the government represents the will of the people.

The end point is this: socialism and democracy go hand in hand (democracy is essentially socialized authority). Capitalism and socialism also go hand in hand, as they balance out each other's weaknesses while they each play to their strengths.

Alot ot negative comments about Communism. First of all 'yes' Stalin forced rapid industrialization and the collectivization of agricultural land, resulting in millions dying from famine but Stalins communism helped defeat the extreme Fachist Nazi's Germany during WWII.

capitalism socialism and communism are all parts of the same process "permanent revolution" 'creative destruction" there are many names for it
capitalism is part a economic system socialism and communism are ideology and economic theory fascism is capitalism in the wrong hands

I read your article about the differences of fascism, socialism and communism. You might want to do some research on what fascism really is. It is led by one leader, like Hitler or Mussolini did, with absolute authority and businesses may be privately owned but the state dictates what and how much they produce. And your article left out Free Markets, which we are barely hanging on to now. Just saying.

Hence all the complicated arguments you all bigots says is your own word of mouth to swallow. We all have our own way of saying things that is your own personal privileges. Heck we all are condemning ourselves into doomage if we cannot act right. As you all probably know that us humans are all created-born equal whereas we are rich nor poor, smart or stupid, black or whites, strong or weak, mono-theist nor atheist we all are the same, meaning we all are humans, not a savage-beast.
Then the point to the whole conclusion of all this havoc is just quite simple My Dear Watson AssProblems, we all just have to get along. Since the dawn of mankind from Prophet Adam up to the last living mankind at the end of time during the Universe Apocalypse we must act like a common human not like beasty-animals who are eating up each other until demise. When we see through human history that the good ones are helping hands with each other, don't that sounds like a slight of socialism, because they are socially coping. While the humans who practice humanism meaning we should all act like humans, not in-humans who are becoming monsters of the netherworld of gruesome, therefore when we combine a bit of both together we have a simple universal more natural theory that is probably called : Social-Humanism that works best for all times. By practicing Social-Humanism you will achieve everything. There is no need a strong-force actions. No one needs to be a Late-Hero unless you are protecting yourself : against ~ from other creatures from another planet or from another dimensions or those negative creature features. Why should we all complain about how we should run each other like psychopathic-maniacs. It has been explain from all kinds of Biblical World Organized Religions that we all should be equal not only from birth but until our expiration date also. Did you know that you were born-nude and you shall-expire nude too. The only changes that we made is from our wrong selves because some would think that when we are born to this reality and when we our souls are returned back into our spiritual form do we need to look good by playing dressing up to our finest clothes. When you are put six-feet-under and all end up buried, all you need to bring is your good deeds. You must realized that when your souls are back and returned to the spiritual form, then stepping into the other God-Ly World to become one again with God ~ you do not need to bring all your world-ly belongings ~ not even your best political practices like you all are endlessly babbling about in here.
If you practice peace - then you shall achieve peace - but If you practice violence then you shall reward yourself your endless brutality until the end of time shall we all no longer exist in this universe.
Finally in conclusion, we must have this simple mottos: Peace, Love, and Let the Positive Vibe be always be with us humans. Stay away from : any forms of negativity and Hatred, until you will never achieve the Higher Form of True Peace where you will know the real-deal meaning of Infinite-Equality at its best. :) :)

Our hopes is that all of you readers will be blessed with goodness. We want all of your Dark-Hearts be returned back into the Good-Hearts just like when you are living innocently in the world of your motherly womb before you are brought to live in this deathtifying-spartan-like-world where everything is nearly in-equal because the practice of true equality is just a mere illusions of your own self-made-greedy-theorem.

Fucking idiot.

I can't believe this is still on the internet. My daughter in high school came across it and I had to immediately shoot her down and set her straight. Not only is it simplistic, but it is wrong. Things like this on the internet are how high school students are led to believe things are simplistic when they are not.

Your thoughts on these two (Difficulty of Living in Society Level of Intelligence Required) are humorous and wrong.

This is not how you describe capitalism: Law built upon universal principles is practiced by decent, well-educated individuals working on the path of growth. Lesser humans are helped, not enslaved. Capitalism is when a guy buys a patent for a drug and is allowed to raise the market price from $2 to $750 because it is his "right".

This is also false:

Capitalism is the best form of government we have experienced on earth so far because it is in the closest alignment with the laws of the universe and truth. It mirrors openness and freedom. It advocates responsibility and integrity. We should never forget just how important such virtues are. - also untrue.

If it WAS true, then why does Cuba have a better literacy rate, overall education system, and health care system than the US does?

Communism, Socialism and Fascism ARE ALL THE SAME. - untrue. Maybe if you are in grade 6 and drawing this out on a scrap piece of paper using a pencil and describing why people vote. Also, throughout history certain governments have warped the ideals of each of these which is one reason why originally Hitler was a POPULAR figurehead of government.

Sometimes I wish there was an internet censor so this type of garbage could be blacklisted.

First off, Id like to congratulate you on the awesome chart. BOOKMARKED :) Also I'm impressed with the way you've conducted your debates with people. You're very well articulated and make your points very clear. Its amazing how many people try to argue against Capitalism using examples of America's modern socialist "capitalism" (and I use the word capitalism very lightly) as a reason for why Capitalism doesnt work. They do this failing to realize the principles introduced from the very system they're defending is what corrupted America's capitalism and caused the very failures they like to argue with on top of ignoring any and all facts that disprove it. (FDR being the big one) It's like arguing the cereal in the bowl is bad due to the rotten milk you poured in. It's the bad milk not the cereal thats the problem!!! It drives me crazy. Kudos to you for being so patient. Anyways I'd just like to suggest that maybe you should specifically put Calvin Coolidges presidency as the best example for Capitalism thats existed for America so far. He had the best economic numbers and shrunk government the most. He was also Ronald Reagans role model in the White House. http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/18/coolidge-cool/
Also for all you people criticizing the chart, none of what is on the chart is wrong at all when you look at the actual results of what happened in each system historically compared to the actual results of what happens vs. the theory. Including religious beliefs and the rest. The theory of socialism is a very pretty thing; but does it work? NO. Governments based on those theories always self destruct or get put down due to their moral atrocities, failing economy, or lack of innovation whether by internal, or external forces. Dont believe me? Look at Greece or Venezuela. And places like China? Well, look at their economic policies and you'll see that they've been starting to incorporate more Capitalist policies. Thems the facts kiddos. I suggest you all educate yourselves with people like Milton Friedman. Also talking about inferior people and superior people is another way of saying diversity. Stop nitpicking and trying to twist words!!! Some people are better at one thing vs another! We are all created Equal... However that doesn't mean we're all the same! Perrsonal decisions throughout your life and your character is what determines if somebody is morally superior such as George Washington vs Hitler. I'll say it! Washington wins. Everytime. PERIOD!!! Now either accept it and try to make something of yourself like he did (CAPATILIST idea!!! Oh noooo!!!! *sarcasm*) or lower the bar for yourself to make yourself "equal" with everybody else (socialist idea) And btw, Socialism, Communism, Facism, and yes even Capitalism are all polictical theories and ideas that come with their own moral ideals. Where do you think the Founding Fathers got the idea for Capitalism? How about a little "Common Sense" please? So stop trying to make the arguement that one is economical or more governmental oriented so the others cant be compared... Complete Nonsense. "Ooo look he made several grammatical mistakes in this sentence therefore hes wrong. i should tell him wut an idiot he is! Heh heh" See! I can do it too. :) If you're gonna disagree at least say something productive with some kind of evidence. I read this stuff because I like differing opinions and also because that means I can learn new things and either change my opinions or strengthen my held beliefs due to articulation and fact checking. I'm sure others do that as well. Ugh I'm done. Anyways again I liked the chart man. Really helpful and informative :D

I've been reading every single argument for the past hour on the above page, let me just sat this is so hilarious. (not the chart, the argument) (: