:::Well actually, "capitalist" can apply to a very, very broad range of economic systems used by an equally wide variety of different historical societies. That's because capitalism involves some degree of private investment in the market, from simple mercantilism through to full-out plutocratic hegemony and everything in between. If such an article were to exist, there would need to be a clearly defined scope, which is next to impossible to achieve. You would have some obvious additions to the list - Augusto Pinochet and other Operation Condor regimes, Park Chung-hee, etc. But where is the line drawn? Do we include the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hafez al-Assad, or Benito Mussolini, who did allow a few private enterprises to exist but within very strict parameters (i.e. "private" in name only)? Does the system of governance necessarily have to be dictatorial? Do we exclude any government that espouses some form of socialism? Communism was a very specific political and economic movement that took hold in the 20th century and has come to be associated with oppression, mass killings, and the complete absence of private enterprise. It is very easy to delineate communist regimes - they were self-identified as such and conformed to the centrally planned economic model established by the Soviet Union. It is therefore much easier to define the scope of this article; Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Vladimir Lenin, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Le Duan, Siad Barre, probably Ho Chi Minh and Josip Broz Tito as well, etc.