know your ismscompare · capitalism vs communism

Capitalism vs communism

Capitalism vs communism, the short answer

Capitalism holds productive property privately and lets prices set by exchange decide what gets made; communism, in Marxist theory, holds it in common with no private owners and no state, distributing output by need instead. One assumes markets coordinate best; the other assumes fair coordination is only possible once class and scarcity are gone.

Last reviewed . Not yet independently reviewed.

What capitalism holds

Capitalism holds that the means of production should be privately owned by individuals and firms, with prices set through voluntary exchange in competitive markets coordinating what gets produced and consumed.

  • Ownership: factories, land, and capital are owned by private individuals and firms, not the state or society as a whole.
  • Coordination: prices arising from supply and demand direct resources to their most valued uses, without a central planner.
  • Distribution: income follows ownership, labor sold at a market wage, and returns to capital and risk.
  • Status: implemented, in varying degrees, by most economies operating today.
Read the full capitalism definition

What communism holds

Communism, in Marxist theory, is a final, classless, stateless stage in which the means of production are held in common and output is distributed by need rather than ownership or exchange.

  • Ownership: the means of production are held in common by society, with no private owners or state administering them.
  • Coordination: Marxist theory holds that need itself, not prices or a market, directs production once scarcity has been overcome.
  • Distribution: output is shared according to each person's need, not according to labor sold or capital owned.
  • Status: never implemented anywhere by Marx's own definition; self-described communist states describe themselves as socialist states still working toward it.
Read the full communism definition

Where they overlap

Both hold that concentrated, unaccountable economic power is a problem worth designing against, even though they propose opposite fixes: capitalism disperses power through competition among many private owners, while communism eliminates private ownership of productive property entirely.

A shared target: unaccountable concentrations of power

Neither system, as its own theorists describe it, wants economic power concentrated in a single unaccountable actor: capitalism relies on competition to prevent any one firm from dominating a market, while communism eliminates private capital ownership specifically to prevent a propertied class from dominating everyone else.

Both emerged as answers to the same industrial-era conditions

Both traditions trace their modern form to the same nineteenth-century industrial economy, and both offer a theory of how ownership of productive property should be structured in response to it, even though they land on opposite answers.

Where they actually differ

Axiscapitalismcommunism
OwnershipPrivate, held by individuals and firmsCommon, held by society as a whole, with no private owners
Coordination mechanismPrices set by supply and demand in competitive marketsNeed itself, once scarcity is overcome per Marxist theory; no market or price system
The state's roleEnforces contracts and property rights; scope varies by variantDissolves entirely once class distinctions disappear, per Marxist theory
Real-world statusImplemented, in varying forms, by most economies operating todayNever implemented anywhere by Marx's own definition