I like the different theories involved.
You have a capitalistic economy, which is an economic system that presents a means of production mostly privately or corporately owned and operated for profit and for which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money.
The main problem with this is system is the unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power, a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly, imperialism, various forms of economic exploitation, and a phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability.
Also the lending of money for interest is a big no-no, if you get my drift.
There is also corporatistic economics, which refers to a political or economic system for which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. These civic assemblies, known as corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy and their purpose is to exert control over their respective areas of social or economic life.
Problems with this is that it resemble's Mussolini's fascism and that it is also quite similar to the government structure of the United States. In which, non-elected republican representatives like Richard Cheney are able to influence the country to support their large corporations. Cheney for example, is the actual head of state for the United States, which in turn makes decisions to help Cheney's Halliburton Oil Company to prosper in Iraq.
You have Socialist economics, which is actually more benefiticial for pacifistic, harmonistic, and religious societies than it is for corrupt societies like China, North Korea, and Cuba. Churches, Mosques, Temples, Synagogues, Gurdwaras, and other religious structures actually benefit the most from a socialistic economic structure?
Socialistic economics is a broad term that ranges from the true communism shown in religious structures to corrupt Stalinism to Sweden's Democratic form of socialism.
Communism is a form of socialism, where everyone shares the same amount of wealth and to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. Communism can only work in a religious/harmonistic dwelling, otherwise it will always fail due to the imperfect nature of human beings.
Joseph Stalin adapted Communism to survive on its own by establishing a corrupt system to enforce regulation and supremacy. Fidel Castro and many other "Communist" leaders use the same practices, which is why the term Stalinism would be a more correct term of use rather than as communism. Since Communism is suppose to be harmonistic and Stalinism is quite the opposite. Almost like Anti-Communism if you ask me.
Democratic Socialism is a combination of the elements found in both Socialistic practices and in Democracy. By fully socialist, this refers either to the idea of public ownership by a government that is democratically accountable to its citizens, or the idea of communism where everyone has equal power in the decision-making about the means of production.
