In different societies, different models of crisis management are used to deal with the crisis, which is completely influenced by the political system that governs these societies. With the widespread prevalence of the Corona virus, different views have been propounded about the capabilities of different political systems, which are still the subject of debates. The fundamental question that has been raised and examined in this context is how the crisis management in authoritarian socialist countries can be evaluated in comparison with liberal countries? The present research is a descriptive-analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The results of the study indicate that it is not simply possible to distinguish between crisis management of democratic states and authoritarian regimes. Liberal democracies, however, mainly try to use a community-based approach to deal with crises. These systems try to manage crises while paying attention to economic well-being and respecting citizens' rights, but the widespread outbreak of Corona has shown that in many cases liberal democracies have not acted fairly and the working classes are still forced to work in order to turn the wheel of their countries' economy. Of course, the socialist approach of these governments in supporting different classes of people is worth considering. In general, liberal democracies have not been as successful as they should have been in dealing with the Corona virus crisis. On the other hand, although authoritarian socialist regimes such as China were able to control the crisis of the Corona outbreak, they still have been criticized for lack of respect for individual rights, absence of strong protectionist policies, and police actions. However, European liberal democracies, including Italy, France and Spain, have chosen the difficult solution of global quarantine like the world's largest authoritarian powers, such as China, that puts it to action.