Types of Governments Versus Types of Economies

Types of Governments Versus Types of Economies
Matthew K.

Okay, let’s see how far we can get in illuminating the differences between Fascist, Socialist, Communistic, and Capitalistic types of governments and as types of economies.

Communistic Governments

This is the most important thing you’re going to read in this essay. Communism is not a form of government. You may want to stop and go back and read that sentence again. However, communistic countries have always devolved into oligarchies or dictatorships where the rich and powerful become oppressive and eventually ruthless dictators. But, a dictatorship is no more a form of communism as is a toaster.

Communistic Economy

Communism, as defined by the father of communism, is a society in which there is no private property. That is the one defining characteristic of Communism. In a small commune, communism works just fine, everyone knows everyone else, everyone is glad to do their fair share to make the community work, everyone shares in the profits and everyone works together to overcome hardships.

Communism is sometimes viewed as a natural evolution from Socialism and from Capitalism.

Communism in large scale has always failed because the power vacuum at the top attracts ruthless and brutal dictators.

Socialistic Governments

Just like with Communism, Socialism is not a form of government, it is a type of society in which people take care of one another and people share in the management of their capitalism.

Socialism as Economy

As stated, Socialism is a type of society where the purpose of society and capitalism is to benefit society.The workers play a vital role in the management of the companies and share more equitably in the profits.

There is plenty of confusion regarding Socialism. Part of the confusion is in the Soviet Union’s reference to Socialism in their name, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. But, the USSR was an oligarchy, much like America is becoming and this oligarchy was not interested in letting the people share in the management or proceeds of their businesses. The USSR was also nothing like a Republic. The USSR was more Communism than Socialist.

Unlike Communism, Socialism works hand in hand with a strong economy as well as a capitalistic economy. There is no conflict between these two. Look at today’s China for a good example of how Capitalism can coexist with other economic systems.

In Socialism, the workers can be actively involved in advancing a Capitalistic agenda, for the benefit of the workers and for society.

When you hear the word, Socialism, think of the word it is derived from, Society. It’s purpose is to allow society to be involved in commerce, and not just as slave labor.

Fascism as a Government

Unlike any of the other types of economies, Fascism is a type of government. It is a government in which the corporations control the government. The government is merged with the big businesses (and their wealthy owners) and the purpose of government becomes a tool to benefit the rich and the businesses and everything is taken from the people to make it happen.

Fascism as an Economy

As an economy, Fascism is a system in which the people have no control over the management of the businesses and have no share in the profits. Under this system, the government quickly starves the people, expecting then to work for lower and lower wages for the benefit of the rich. This always leads to revolution, often bloody and expensive.

And, this brings us to Capitalism.

Capitalism as a Form of Government

Capitalism, is not a form of government any more than the other three. However, Capitalism is a hungry beast that will devour a society if it goes unchecked. This is obvious in the USA, today. Capitalism is devouring the people and the economy and the government.

Unlike the risk of dictators in the other types of economies, there is no power vacuum that attracts dictators, there instead is a small group of rich and ambitious oligarchs who will try to take over control of the government. When they succeed, they change the laws to allow for fewer regulations on business, more tax breaks and welfare (subsidies) for the businesses, and less and less services for the people. They make it harder and harder and eventually impossible for the people to have any say in their own government.

Capitalism as a type of Economy

Capitalism is best described as a system where money makes more money. It’s where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The system works great when there are good strong regulations in place to stop the rich and powerful from influencing the government.

Capitalism works well with both Fascism (Capitalism out of control) and Socialism (well regulated Capitalism) but conflicts with the true tenants of Communism.

Conclusion

America has been deregulating our businesses like it’s going out style, ever since the 80s, and look where it’s gotten us. Businesses and their wealthy owners own most of our wealth now, they own most of our government, they want more control of our political process and want to take voting rights away from more people.

[poll id=”81″]

8 thoughts on “Types of Governments Versus Types of Economies”

  1. Another great post, Matthew. You did a great job of describing how types of economies are not types of governments, but it would be nice to see a good comparison of types of governments too. Democracy, Republic, Oligarchy, dictatorship, Fascism, what else?

  2. We need to see more of these. The ignorance displayed by the Republican voters makes me both sad and frightened. Maybe one or two will stumble across sites like this and click away with just a little better understanding of the real world. Thanks for the great article.

  3. It is obvious you are bias based on your tone.
    “…a hungry beast that will devour a society if it goes unchecked. Capitalism is devouring the people and the economy and the government.” “Devour”? Really?
    “…and less and less services for the people. They make it harder and harder and eventually impossible for the people to have any say in their own government.” “…less and less” “…harder and harder” seriously? (by the way, the correct way to express what you meant would be ‘fewer and fewer’ not “less and less” Just a heads-up, no negative implication intended. My Dad preached it to me.)
    Lastly: “…want to take voting rights away from more people.” Your conclusion is not supported in the factual respects of your document.

    My thoughts: I am saddened that, with great interest, I read your article in hopes to gain insight based on fact. As I was initially inspired, unfortunately emotions took over in your writings and left me with a lack of trust.

    I understand how politics can be and is a subject of passion.

    I wish you and yours great success and prosperity regardless of our divergent passions.

    1. Hello, Bob.

      Thanks for reading and for your comment. I am sorry you disapprove of my word choices and that your perception of my passion leads you to distrust my conclusions. I only wish that you could include some facts or arguments that might encourage a discussion allowing all of us to walk away better informed.

      You’re right, I didn’t include facts about Americans losing our voting rights since it’s been in the news almost daily. If you feel that I need to repeat the commonly known facts of this issue, then I should probably also prove the facts that “up” is “up” and “Capitalism is not a form of Government.”

      One problem that some people have, and I’m not saying you exhibit this or that you don’t, is they disagree with something and can’t say why, so they argue about the peripheral issues, such as word choice or my mother wears combat boots.

      It helps us all to discuss the issues if we can stick to the issues.

      Would you like to further this discussion or perhaps enlighten me and my readers regarding the issue at hand?

  4. OMG, reading Bob’s comment after reading Captain Jack’s latest post on Conservative Policies (should have been titled Conservative Decision Making) is almost too coincidental. I don’t know if Bob is conservative, but his comments sure do avoid any facts. For those who are unable to change their conclusions, facts are only a pest that always come back to bite.

  5. Judicial construction that exonerates government to accept that “no private property for one isolated person,” is mere impairment of democracy as to that one while “no private property for all,” is Communism is flawed in that democracy exists for all, or for none.

    The impairment or misappropriation of private property for one is impairment, or refusal to acknowledge private property for all as a Constitutional mandate.

    Democracy applies individually though it may be common as collective philosophy. By denying one, the tolerance to deny all is already constructed. If some are denied, it’s a matter of when all will be denied, not if all will be denied.

  6. Capitalism has always provided all levels with improvement, albeit that the owners most frequently get more. However, it is that greater reward that inspires the entrepreneurial spirt (whooo, did I use a dirty term?) that produces the most growth. In addition, economic distribution under capitalism is not a zero sum game, where wealth earned by owners is taken from the “workers”, it is a system where wealth is created, as the history of the United States shows. The problem with socialism is that humans have a rational response to being given wealth produced by others. They always want more. And, of course, in a government created on socialistic principles, invariably those making the decisions on redistribution of wealth rarely have any concept of the means and efforts required to produce it! (note, sadly, the business experience in Pres. Obama’s advisors and appointees!)
    As to the deregulation of business, surely you must live in a fantasy.
    I challenge you to even be able to carry the title pages of regulations on business that have been produced by this administration, much less the amount produced since the ’80’s

    1. Goodness, that’s the first thing that comes to mind. Someone has really drank the Kool Aid. There’s no such thing as the trickle down fairy. Supply doesn’t create wealth or demand. All these make believe conservative lies have been disproven over and over but some people just refuse to accept facts that might cause them to question their bad assumptions. Normally I would include links to the facts disproving the faulty theories but links will serve no purpose in this case since everyone who cares enough to research the topic already knows the facts and those who still believe in the make believe fairy dust will never follow the links or believe the facts if they accidentally click the links.

      Secondly, James is right on the money when he says that “a rational response to being given wealth produced by others. They always want more.” That’s why non-unionized workforces always end up at subsistence wages. Again. this has been proved time and time again. Remember what our history books say about the days of the robber barons? Only the unethical survive and they profit handsomely because they refuse to share the money that their employees are making for them. This is such as plain and simple example of the free market.

      Yes, we need to encourage entrepreneurs, but there has to be some lower and upper limits that we as a society will allow. If you can’t or refuse to share fairly in the money your workers are making, then you shouldn’t be in business. If you can’t make a successful company by paying a living wage to your workers, then you shouldn’t be in business.

      And, lastly, anyone who thinks that America wasn’t founded on socialist principles has never read or understood the US Constitution, “We the People…”

Comments are closed.