Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26


A capitalist economy otherwise called as the free marketeconomy can be defined as an economic activity, where the means of production are privately owned. Most of the economies over the world have enriched their economic system by implementing capitalist norm in the recent years. Here in such form of economy there is no Government interference.

The basic characteristics of such types of economic system are as follows:

More private participation in the field of economicactivities; Free environment to compete in the economy; Individuals and firms act for profit motive; High freedom for choice to the consumers; Government acts as a police state.

Capitalist Economy: Definition 'What is a capitalist economy?' is quite a common question and every student of economics must know its meaning, as capitalism led to development of the modern era in which we live today. Any economy that is dominated by capitalists is often termed to be a capitalist economy. In the pre-world war I era, most of the economies in Europe were capitalist is nature. Even today, many economies have reformed their demerits but have remained capitalist. It must be noted that 100% capitalist economy countries, where the government plays a laissez faire role no longer exist. A capitalist economy is an economy where the government does not take part in almost any kind of production process. Capitalist entrepreneurs are encouraged by the government. The government does the duty of collecting taxes and safeguarding the security of the country. In fact, some essential public functions such as public transport, taking up construction of roads or dams were also handed over to the private sector. Such an economy is known as a pure capitalist economy. Advantages and Disadvantages of Capitalist Economy There are some advantages as well as disadvantages of capitalist economies that were realized during the industrial revolution itself. Such advantages and disadvantages have been enlisted in the following paragraphs. Advantages: The first and foremost advantage of a capitalist economy is that there are rapid economic growth that is observed in the nation. The second advantage is that all capitalists make an attempt to dominate the overseas markets. This brings in large amounts of wealth into the nation. Capitalist economy also mobilizes almost all possible resources, monetary and non-monetary, by enslaving it into the production process. The capitalist system has also lead to the development of science and technology which enhances the standard of living of an economy. Disadvantages: The advantages of a capitalist economy always seem charming. However, there are certain social flaws in such an economy. The capitalist system first of all makes a huge gap in between the rich and the poor. Exploitation of labor is often noticed in such an economy. In addition to that there are also cases where strikes and intense class violence is observed. A capitalist economy often puts a lot of pressure on the natural resources and the environment. A looming energy crisis is often a grave threat to the economy. Fraudulent, unethical and often life-threatening practices by capitalists are observed in the economy.

In the debate on socialist economy vs capitalist economy, there are many politicians who observed that having a totally capitalistic economy is not exactly very healthy. However, there are many different mixed capitalist economy systems that have evolved as a result. There are many such mixed capitalist economies that concentrate on the phenomenon of capitalism but maintain appropriate legislation in order to curb all the ill effects of capitalism. In addition to that such governments also undertake all tasks that are considered an absolute necessity. Such tasks include, eduction, health, defense and infrastructure. The remaining sectors are open for the private sector.


Mixed Economy can be defined as a form of organization where the elements of both capitalist economy and socialist economy are found. Simply in such type of economy there is the presence of private economic freedom with centralized planning with a common goal of avoiding the problems associated with both capitalism as well as socialism.

In this system the freedom in the economic activities are influenced by the Government's regulation and licensing policies.
Existence Of A Mixed Economy

It is too difficult to define a country's economy as capitalist, socialist, or mixed. But as the experiences tell the role of the Government has increased very fast after the worldwide depression. The was one of the best examples of the Capitalist economy is considered as a mixed type today.
Mixed Economy: Definition There is no specific or concrete definition of mixed economies that can be put forth. The definition and also the advantages of a mixed economy can be better elaborated by stating that such an economy is a mixture of one or more economic ideologies that are predominantly conceived from a collaboration of capitalism and socialism. Some defining features of a mixed economy include the following.

Centralized economic planning and legislature Decentralized execution of policies and legislation Participation of grassroots level government in policy formulation Government ownership of key industries such as communications and infrastructure, defense productions, steel production, mining, energy, etc. Stringent economic and labor laws Decentralization of economic concentration and even distribution of wealth In case, if the nation is a democratic republic, members of legislature can be of different ideologies

These might not be all the features of the mixed economies as there are several other unique features that can be found within the economy itself. However, the basic feature of liberty in business and regulation by the government is found. Mixed economy examples include several national economies such as India, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc. Mixed Economy: Pros and Cons Capitalism and socialism are two opposing concepts and socialism is often termed to be a reaction to capitalism. Though the system covers up the drawbacks of both the ideals, a mixed economy is also characterized by certain pros and cons. A mixed economy is, for example, successful in providing the citizens of the state with some basic necessities. These necessities cover up all infrastructure, food, clothing and shelter, absolute defense forces, protection of rights of citizens and freedom to set up private enterprise in almost all sectors, except for the ones where civilian enterprise is banned. However, this monopoly is not very healthy as though the services are provided, they tend to be quite underdeveloped and rife with corruption. Mixed economy is also restrictive to many international trade activities that enable the domestic industry to thrive. This might sound very comforting for regional entrepreneurs, but is not healthy as the domestic industry is not competent enough to match the international standards. Corruption at an unchecked rate, excessive taxation and inflation are some other characteristics that tend to plague the success of a mixed economy.

Socialist Economic System: Definition

A socialist economy is based upon the principle of welfare of the people. As opposed to capitalism, a socialist economic system is based upon the principle that economic activities should be undertaken so that people would be able to use goods produced there of, instead of employing the production for profit. Many economic philosophers had previously refused to believe in this system as a legitimate one, but countries with socialist economic system, have proved the importance and success of the element of socialism in the governance of any economy. This has eventually led to the evolution of mixed economies. The masterpiece of such a collaboration of socialism and capitalism are the progressive and fast growing economies of the third world nations, prominent ones among them being the ones of India and Brazil. More on what is socialism. The following is a summary of the definition of a socialist economic system:

Ownership by Government: The principal characteristic of a socialist economy is the governmental ownership and nationalization of key production sectors. Though in theory almost all firms and companies should be nationalized, in practice, such a transfer from private to public is almost impossible. Due to this governments are promoted to rely on some private establishments that are largely regulated and managed by governmental laws and officials. Organizations that are involved in production in many cases are co-operative organizations, instead of firms and companies. Progressive Taxation and Wealth Redistribution: Often considered to be a drawback of the socialist economy, taxation system, progressively taxes higher income with higher tax percentages. The collected mammoth tax is then redistributed with the help of several public welfare schemes and policies. Price Control: Another distinct feature of a socialist economy is the technique of price control. Prices of commodities are not fixed by demand and supply analysis, but are fixed by the government, with respect to the necessity and nature of the commodity. Nationalization and Centralization: A socialist economic system is basically operated by a central government. The nationalization and centralization of all avenues of production are handled by one centrally based government that also frames the fiscal policies. The success of a socialist economy is found in such a convention where fiscal policies so implemented are executed by regional and grass root level administration, with an absolute timing and discipline. The economy, as a whole, thus, becomes very, very successful. The GDP shoots up almost instantaneously and poverty is abolished.

Socialist Economic System in the Modern Era The dominating red flag of socialism and communism was often wrongfully associated with negative consequences. However, there are several success stories of socialism that can be told. Vladimir Lenin's planning of the Soviet Economy and the people's Republic of China are two prominent success stories of socialism. Though socialism has indeed given rise to communism, there are several aspects of socialism that have proved to be successful in the past. The Soviet Union's Five Year Plans of economic planning is one of the best socialist policy that found success not only in the Soviet Union but is widely used by many other nations. I hope that you find the facts on socialist economic system resourceful.

A socialist economy is a system of production where goods and services are produced directly for use, in contrast to a capitalist economic system, where goods and services are produced to generate profit.[4] Goods and services would be produced for their physical utility and use-value, eliminating the need for market-induced needs to ensure a sufficient amount of demand for products to be sold at a profit. Production in a socialist economy is therefore "planned" or "coordinated", and does not suffer from the business cycle inherent to capitalism. In most socialist theories, economic planning only applies to the factors of production and not to the allocation of goods and services produced for consumption, which would be distributed through a market. Karl Marx stated that "lower-stage communism" would consist of compensation based on the amount of labor one performs.[5] The ownership of the means of production varies in different socialist theories. It can either be based on public ownership by a state apparatus; direct ownership by the users of the productive property through worker cooperative; or commonly owned by all of society with management and control delegated to those who operate/use the means of production.

Management and control over the activities of enterprises is based on self-management and self-governance, with equal power-relations in the workplace to maximize occupational autonomy. A socialist form of organization would eliminate controlling hierarchies so that only a hierarchy based on technical knowledge in the workplace remains. Every member would have decision-making power in the firm and would be able to participate in establishing its overall policy objectives. The policies/goals would be carried out by the technical specialists that form the coordinating hierarchy of the firm, who would establish plans or directives for the work community to accomplish these goals.[6] However, the economies of the former Socialist states, excluding SFR Yugoslavia, were based on bureaucratic, top-down administration of economic directives and micromanagement of the worker in the workplace inspired by capitalist models of scientific management. As a result, socialists have argued that they were not socialist due to the lack of equal power-relations in the workplace, the presence of a new "elite", and because of the commodity production that took place in these economies. These economic and social systems have been classified as being either Bureaucratic collectivist, Coordinatorist, State capitalist or Deformed workers' states, the exact nature of the USSR et al remains unresoved within the socialist movement [7]

Socialist economic planning

Economic planning is a mechanism for the allocation of economic inputs and decision-making based on direct allocation, in contrast to the market mechanism, which is based on indirect allocation.[8] An economy based on economic planning appropriates its resources as needed, so that allocation comes in the form of internal transfers rather than market transactions involving the purchasing of assets by one government agency or firm by another. Decision-making is carried out by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level. Economic planning is not synonymous with the concept of a command economy, which existed in the Soviet Union, and was based on a highly bureaucratic administration of the entire economy in accordance to a comprehensive plan formulated by a central planning agency, which specified output requirements for productive units and tried to micromanage the decisions and policies of enterprises. The command economy is based on the organizational model of a capitalist firm, but applies it to the entire economy.[9] Various advocates of economic planning have been staunch critics of command economies and centralized planning. For example, Leon Trotsky believed that central planners, regardless of their intellectual capacity, operated without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy and understand the local conditions and rapid changes in the economy. Therefore, central planners would be unable to effectively coordinate all economic activity because they lacked this informal information. [10] Economic planning in socialism takes a different form than economic planning in capitalist mixed economies (such as Dirigisme, Central banking and Indicative planning); in the former case planning refers to production of use-value directly (planning of production), while in the latter case planning refers to the planning of capital accumulation in order to stabilize or increase the efficiency of this process.

Normative aspects
See also: Socialist critique of capitalism

The goal of socialist economics is to neutralize capital (or, in the case of market socialism, to subject investment and capital to social planning[11]), to coordinate the production of goods and services to directly satisfy demand (as opposed to market-induced needs), and to eliminate the business cycle and crisis of overproduction that occur as a result of an economy based on capital accumulation and private property in the means of production. Socialists generally aim to achieve greater equality in decision-making and economic affairs, grant workers greater control of the means of production and their workplace, and to eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees. Free access to the means of subsistence is a requisite for liberty, because it ensures that all work is voluntary and no class or individual has the power to coerce others into performing alienating work. The ultimate goal for Marxist socialists is the emancipation of labor from alienating work, and therefore freedom from having to perform such labor to receive access to the material necessities for life. It is argued that freedom from necessity would maximize individual liberty, as individuals would be able to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labor for others (the power-elite or ruling class in this case) via mechanisms of social control, such as the labor market and the state. The stage of economic development in which this is possible is contingent upon advances in the productive capabilities of society. This advanced stage of social relations and economic organization is called pure communism.

Traditional Economy - is a system where the allocation of available

resources is made on the basis of inheritance. As a deep-rooted economic theory with well-built social setup,Traditional Economy generally makes use of prehistoric instruments and techniques. From time immemorial, conventional and age-old human occupations like agriculture remained the focal point of interest for Traditional Economy. This is perhaps the onlyeconomic theory, which has evolved historically in certain countries. However, all nations having Traditional Economy these days, are fast switching off to more contemporary concepts like Mixed Economy, Command Economy or Market Economy, to keep pace with the modern economic trends and happenings.

Irrespective of the old approaches of Traditional Economy, the concept is still prevalent in some under-developed South American nations like Papa New Guinea and Brazil, and in a handful of other African and Asian countries. In fact, Traditional Economy can be called as the economy of the ingenious population of the world like the Pygmies belonging to the Congo region in Central Africa. As per a World Bank estimate, this type of economy is still prevalent among 400 million indigenous people across the world. So, it is not at all an extinct economic concept in present times. There are of course a handful of benefits derived from Traditional Economy. It actually nurtures a feeling of unity among individuals, helping in the development of a socialbond and sense within them by reducing mutual hostilities. Consequently, people feel psychologically more free, comfortable and secured, which increase their working abilities million fold. This in turn, brings down the rate of unemployment. Moreover, since the entire population is engaged in activities of some kind or the other, their mind never sit idle to plan criminal activities. Hence, there is a significant decrease in the rates of crime as well. To sum up, Traditional Economy permits people to enjoy more independence against minimum or no financial expenses. The concept of Traditional Economy is all about popular autonomy, where productions take place as per the demand generated. Hence, primitive human occupations like animal grazing, gathering, hunting and cultivation form the basis of this economy. However, the surplus food production is not consumed but used for commercial activities.

An underdevelopedeconomyin whichcommunitiesuse primitivetoolsandmethodsto harvest and hunt forfood, often resulting in littleeconomic growth. Traditional economies are often found inruralregionswithhighlevels of subsistence farming.Countriesthat evolve their economies past the traditionalleveloftendevelopintomarket economiesorcommand economies.

A traditional economy is a very underdeveloped economy that often depends on agriculture as its main base. Perhaps hearkening back to its agrarian roots, a traditional economy is also known as a subsistence economy.

In order to fully understand a traditional economy, it is necessary to first define the three main economic systems. Market economies are so called because prices are determined by market prices. In command economies, prices and supplies are determined by the government. In traditional economies, there may be no prices whatsoever. A traditional economy is a system where traditions, customs and belief systems determine its operation. In that state, this type of economic system may go unchanged for quite some time. Once this economy does begin to change, it usually morphs into one of the other systems mentioned previously.

There are no pure traditional economy in the World now. India is not a traditional economy. Many economies continue with traditional small scale/ cottage/ village industries limited by local markets as wellas traditional small scale fragmented land farming, but most economies have modern industries and transport, growing urbanization. None of the countries canbe strictly referred to as traditional economies. And, many of the countries are exporting and importing through cross border trade. Many are capitalist economies, often mixed economies. Some are relatively closed economies with communist or religious dictatorships. If you mean which countries have small-scale traditional industries co-existing with modern industries, then most underveloped and developing countries fall in this category. They include, beside India, Pakistan, SriLanka, Bangladesh, Nepal.Vietnam, Indonesia,. Mynamar, , Muaritious, several porr African countries. A traditional economy is an economic system in which resources are allocated by inheritance, and which has a strong social network and is based on primitive methods and tools. It is strongly connected to subsistence farming. Most countries that have historically had a traditional economy have replaced it with a command economy,market economy, or mixed economy. However, it is still found today in underdeveloped, agricultural parts of South America, Asia, and Africa.A traditional economy is where people produce most of what they need to survive.Hunting and gathering, farming, and herding cattle are the bases of traditional economy. People hunt for the food they eat or raise it themselves. Often they make their own clothing and tools. If they produce more food than they need, they trade the surplus, or extra food, for goods made by others.

Social engineering is the act of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential
information, rather than by breaking in or using technical cracking techniques. [1] While similar to a confidence trick or simple fraud, the term typically applies to trickery or deception for the purpose of information gathering, fraud, or computer system access; in most cases the attacker never comes face-to-face with the victim. "Social engineering" as an act of psychological manipulation was popularized by hacker-turned-consultant Kevin Mitnick. The term had previously been associated with the social sciences, but its usage has caught on among computer professionals. [2]

What is Autocratic Leadership? In autocratic leadership, the leader is supreme and takes all the powers in his own hands. Even though this sounds much like dictatorship or tyranny, each of these concepts are separated by some distinct elements in them. Autocratic leadership is broadly categorized into two types - directive and permissive, on the basis of how the leader functions. In terms of directive autocratic leadership style the leader makes decision on his own, allots some tasks for his subordinates and monitors his subordinates. The permissive autocratic leadership style, on the other hand, is a bit more lenient as the leader takes decisions unilaterally, but gives his subordinates ample freedom to execute the tasks. Autocratic Leadership: Good or Bad In a corporate world, the leader is the person in-charge. Having all the decision making powers in his hand means that the leader has the right execute his powers without consulting his subordinates. In autocracy, the subordinates do not have the right to give suggestions. They are simply expected to follow the orders of a leader, and that too without demanding an explanation. In politics, autocracy or authoritarian rule is the one wherein the autocrat takes the reins of administration in his own hands, and takes all the decisions pertaining to the state or nation without consulting anybody. The fact that the leader resorts to authority to get his work done or turns a deaf ear to employee inputs may make you feel that this is the worst among the numerous leadership styles. However, there do exist some circumstances wherein this style comes up as the most effective leadership style. Some examples of such circumstances include limited period of time in which the targets have to be met, when powers of the management are challenged by the employees, etc. One of the key benefits of autocratic leadership is the fact that decision making becomes much more simple and fast, as the leader doesn't have to consult or convince anybody. Basically autocratic leadership can work wonders for the organization when decision making has to be quick and during some crisis. That was a significant bit of information on the autocratic leadership style, along with some positive and negative attributes of the same. While the positives of autocratic leadership style can result in successful outcomes, such autocratic leaders do not enjoy a mass following among their employees. At the end of the day, there is absolutely no leadership style which can be called perfect, as each of them have their own pros and cons. Thus, all comes down to the character traits of a leader. In leaders, authoritative personality to a certain extent is must, but overdoing it can affect the morale of employees.

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings:


A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.


A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom.


In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

In the 20th century and early 21st century, hereditary dictatorship remained a relatively common phenomenon. For some scholars, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianismdescribes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.


In the military and other urgent circumstances, people may prefer the ability to be told what do next. According to Money Zine, "In fact, in times of stress or emergency, some subordinates may actually prefer an autocratic style--they prefer to be told exactly what to do. ... The autocratic leadership style is very effective when times are stressful."

Lengthy debate has no place in many work environments, and this form of leadership limits arguments. It allows employees to have one task, and that is to work, which could mean that the employees master their tasks and become proficient enough to help grow the company.


According to Money Zine, "The communication style of an autocratic leader is usually described as one way. They tell you exactly what they want done." This can be frustrating if the boss talks to the employees only when they make mistakes, and little praise is provided. In addition, it can generate a company of zombies with no fresh ideas. This autocratic style can create an environment of fear and resentment, leading to high turnover and absenteeism, which can hinder progress. Moreover, it can stifle creative ideas that might make the company more competitive.


The pros and cons of autocratic leadership are clear for certain situations. For example, emergencies require a strong leader to keep order. However, in less stressful circumstances, it may be better to debate an issue before proceeding. Autocratic leaders may not be good at communication, but they sometimes have the best ideas.

On the other hand, autocratic leaders must take full responsibility for the results. This last part does not usually occur, and this leaves many employees unhappy and feeling undervalued. Therefore, the dynamic of the relationship in the professional environment must change to become more equal. Otherwise, you may a have strong leader with no followers or employees who have no direction

2. Democracy-

is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus

(consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).[1] The term comes from the Greek: (dmokrata) "rule of the people",[2] which was coined from (dmos) "people" and (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[3] Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of

'democracy',[4] equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. [5] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7] There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated through the use of balances to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power, thus become undemocratic.[10][11][12] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for aminority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally.[14] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[15][16] Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating subject for establishing a democracy. [17] In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups also. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece.[18][19] However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome,[18] Europe,[18] and North and South America.[20] The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions.[21] Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[22] Theright to vote has been expanded in many Jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893.

Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. The following kinds are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.

[edit]Representative Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[50] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so. [edit]Parliamentary Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] [edit]Liberal A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).

3.Communism- is a sociopolitical movement that aims for

a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1] In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freelyassociated individuals.[2][3] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on

the way to communism. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by Communist parties, regardless of the type of economic system they preside over.

Communism - Marxism & The Communist Manifesto Communism, which is also described as "Revolutionary Proletarian Socialism" or "Marxism," is both a political and economic philosophy. The abridgment of Communism is enclosed in two primary writings: (1) The Communist Manifesto, which was first published in 1848 by Karl Marx, and (2) Principles of Communism, by Friedrich Engels. At the request of the Communist League, an activist group they were members of, Marx and Engels together authored The Communist Manifesto. The main goal of The Communist Manifesto was to focus on class struggle and motivate the common people to riot. Even more so, it was designed to envision a model government, whose economics would destroy the upper class - freeing the lower class from tyranny. According to The Communist Manifesto, Communism has ten essential planks: Abolition of Private Property. Heavy Progressive Income Tax. Abolition of Rights of Inheritance. Confiscation of Property Rights. Central Bank. Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation. Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture. Government Control of Labor. Corporate Farms and Regional Planning. Government Control of Education.

Fundamentally, The Communist Manifesto was a rebellion against the extreme poverty of the lower class. Communism - Atheism and Amorality Communism doesn't end with economic and political reform. By definition, it further demands the abolition of both Religion and the Absolute Morality founded upon Religion. The irony is that Communism supposedly attempts to enhance civility within society, but removes all notions of Absolute Morality, the very cornerstone of civility. Furthermore, after Communism is instituted by the people, the system becomes Totalitarian, resulting in greater oppression of the people it was designed to "serve." This fact is well documented throughout the history of Communist nations. Communism - Foundation in Czarism Communism, though distinctive, is thought by some to have been heavily influenced by Czarism, a Totalitarian regime replaced by Communism after Russia's 1917 Revolution. While most of Europe's history has been symbolized by the rule of limited centers of power, Russia resisted Europe's movement to limit monarchical power. Legal historian Harold Berman writes regarding historical European political policy, "It also has been, or once was, a source of freedom. A serf might run to the town court for protection against his master. A vassal might run to the king's court for protection against his lord. A cleric might run to the ecclesiastical court for protection against the king." (Law and Revolution). Russians under Czarist rule had no such protection from the wiles of an unjust Czar. And so it is for Communists. Under Communism, the government is absolute. Under Stalin, perhaps the most notorious Communist, around 40 million Russian citizens were murdered for "the good of the state." Communism - The Practical Results The practical results of Communism have been horror and atrocity for those under communist rule. So much so, advocates of the Marxist Worldview have made every attempt to point out where communist leaders have strayed

from the fundamental teachings of Karl Marx, in an attempt to absolve Communism. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Marxist influence brought about many of these horrors. The irony is, Marxism renounces religion, not because of religious doctrine, but because of the actions of "religious" men. No one could accuse a religion such asChristianity of evil doctrine. However, it seems that men are intrinsically evil and need only an opportunity to express this inherent reality. One must look at the overall outcome of a philosophical doctrine on society, both good and bad, not specific instances of abuse. Christianity, for example, has been used by wicked men to do much evil, but its underlying doctrine has been the cause of much good in the world. Communism, on the other hand, has brought only atrocity into the world. Communism has not brought relief to the majority as promised, nor has it ended oppression as purposed. Communism has only served to removeMorality from the masses -- a dangerous and costly experiment

4.Conservatism- (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")


is a political and social philosophy that

promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.
[4] [2][3]

The first

established use of the term in a political context was by Franois-Ren de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution. The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views. Seymour Martin Lipset wrote that liberals and conservatives "typically do not take alternative positions on issues of equality and freedom. Instead, each side appeals to one or the other core values, as liberals stress egalitarianisms primacy and the social injustice that flows from unfettered individualism, while conservatives enshrine individual freedom and the social need for mobility and achievement as values "endangered" by the collectivism inherent in liberal nostrums."

Political science often credits the Irish politician Edmund Burke (who served in the British House of Commons and opposed the French Revolution) with many of the ideas now called conservative.

According to Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party,

"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."

Robert Eccleshall states, "It is the persistent image of society as a command structure in which the responsibilities of leadership can be exercised within the framework of a strong state manifested in divineright royalism ... that distinguishes English conservatism from rival ideologies."

Conservative political parties include the Republican Party in the United States, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Kuomintang of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Conservative Party of Canada, the Pakistan Muslim League in Pakistan, and the Bharatiya Janata Party in India.

Liberal conservatism Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances.

As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across

countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supportedfreedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres. Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative. In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of Russell Kirk). A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views with those of social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the more collectivist views of socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility, with social liberal views on defence of civil rights, environmentalism and support for a limited welfare state. This philosophy is that of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translated into English associal conservatism. Conservative liberalism Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement.

The roots of

conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. The events such as World War I occurring after 1917 brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism. Libertarian conservatism Main article: Libertarian conservatism

Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combines libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Its five main branches areConstitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal andeconomic freedom. Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled libertarian conservatism right-libertarianism.

In contrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to the Federal Reserve and opposition to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention. Many of them have views in accord to Ludwig von Mises.
[37] [citation needed]


many of them opposeabortion, as they see it as a positive liberty and violates the non-aggression principle because abortion is aggression towards the fetus. Fiscal conservatism Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.

Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', argued that a government does

not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer: ...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large. Green conservatism Green conservatism is a term used to refer to conservatives who have incorporated green concerns into their ideology.
[40][41] [39]

One of the first uses of the term green conservatism was by former United

StatesRepublican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a debate on environmental issues with John Kerry. Around this time, the green conservative movement was sometimes referred to as the crunchy

con movement, a term popularized by National Review magazine and the writings of Rod Dreher.


group Republicans for Environmental Protection seeks to strengthen the Republican Party's stance on environmental issues, and supports efforts to conserve natural resources and protect human and environmental health. The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom under David Cameron has embraced a green agenda, including a tax on workplace car parking spaces, a halt to airport growth, a tax on gas-guzzling 4x4s and

restrictions on car advertising. The measures were suggested by The Quality of Life Policy Group, which was set up by Cameron to help fight climate change. Cultural and social conservatism Main articles: Cultural conservatism and social conservatism Cultural conservatives support the preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries.

The shared culture may be as divergent as Western

culture orChinese culture. In the United States, the term cultural conservative may imply a conservative position in the culture war. Cultural conservatives hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the face of monumental change. They believe strongly in traditional values and traditional politics, and often have an urgent sense of nationalism. Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism, although there are some overlaps. Social conservatives believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often through civil law or regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect. A second meaning of the term social conservatism developed in the Nordic countries and continental Europe. There it refers to liberal conservatives supporting modern European welfare states. Social conservatives (in the first meaning of the word) in many countries generally favor the prolife position in the abortion controversy and oppose public funding of embryonic stem cell research; oppose botheugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;

support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one

woman; view thenuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; opposesecularism and privatization of religious belief; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, premarital sex, non-marital sex and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to beobscenity or indecency. Religious conservatism See also: Religious right (disambiguation) and Christian Right Religious conservatives seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.


As an economic system, fascism is SOCIALISM with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful COMPETITION, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary MARXISM, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascismsubstituted the particularity of nationalism and racialismblood and soilfor the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism. Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a societys economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the national interestthat is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. ENTREPRENEURSHIPwas abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage andANTITRUST laws, though they regulate the FREE MARKET, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics. Under fascism, the state, through official CARTELS, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and excess incomes had to be surrendered as

taxes or loans. The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national selfsufficiency, PROTECTIONISMwas necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of laborhallmarks of liberalism. Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boardssubject always to the final authority of the dictators economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced harmony was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely. To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domesticroads, buildings, stadiums the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production. The fascist leaders antagonism to COMMUNISM has been misinterpreted as an affinity for CAPITALISM. In fact, fascists anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for peoples allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the states prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition. If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italys leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography: The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program. Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said: The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 2627) Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the states objectives. Mussolinis corporate state consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of initiative differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade corporations, each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nations credit. Hitlers regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor CONSCRIPTIONwas inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nations economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies. In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced

central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during theGREAT DEPRESSION. It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelts New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics, and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his honest purpose of restoring Italy and acknowledged that he kept in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman. Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Vigliones pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

6.Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and

maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." The Imperialism of the last 500 years is described in the above work as a primarily western undertaking that employs [1] "expansionist mercantilism and latterly communist systems." Geographical domains include the Mongolian Empire, Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Empire, the Persian Empire, the French [2] [3] [4] Empire, the Russian Empire, the Chinese Empire, or the British Empire, but the term can equally be applied to domains of knowledge, beliefs, values and expertise, such as the empires [5] [6] of Christianity (see Christendom) or Islam (seeCaliphate). Imperialism is usually autocratic, and also sometimes monolithic (i.e. having a massive, unchanging structure that does not permit [7] individual variation) in character.

7.monarchy- is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally

lodged with an individual, known as a monarch ("single ruler"), or king (male), queen(female). As a political entity, the monarch is the head of state, generally until their death or abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."

Historically, the notion of monarchy may emerge under different circumstances. It may grow out of tribal kingship, and the office of monarch (kings) becoming typically hereditary, resulting in successive dynasties or "houses", especially when the leader is wise and able enough to lead the tribals. It may also be a consequent emergence after an act of violence is committed upon local communities by an invading group, which usurps the communities' rights over their resources and then gradually releases

such rights under controlled conditions. The leader of the usurping group often establishes himself as a monarch. A state of monarchy is said to result that reveals the relationships between resources, communities, monarch and his office. Even in antiquity, the strict hereditary succession could be tempered by systems of elective monarchy, where an assembly elects a new monarch out of a pool of eligible candidates. The concept has also been modernized, and constitutional monarchies where the title of monarch remains mostly ceremonial, without or with very limited political power. Currently, 44 nations in the world have monarchs as heads of state, 16 of which are Commonwealth realms that recognize Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. The historical form of absolute monarchy is retained only in Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland and Vatican City.

PLUTOCRACY- The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also
sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Mostuniversities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters." The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America, by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixedgroup of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless . . . the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments." In the US, plutocratic governance is abetted by mass media owned by the hyperwealthy and operated in their own economic self-interest, the failure to provide public financing to political candidates, poor oversight of the electoral process, elitist Supreme Court appointments, the organization of wealth into socially-irresponsible corporations, the collapse of meaningful regulatory regimes, plutocratically financed "think tanks" (propaganda distribution centers), and an impoverished educational system that has failed utterly to provide Americans with the elements of political literacy (all of which have their foundations in philosophy). See also: class warfare, democracy, oligarchy, progressivism, the business roundtable, and the links in the resource section below.