Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization.
What alternatives do you have in mind? Everything listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systems#Types looks like either a form of capitalism, of communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. (There are one or two that might be considered distinct, but they look like they are only applicable at a very small scale, and even then they ultimately look pretty similar to capitalism or communism.)
I assume you're not just trying to draw a distinction between communism and socialism, since you're calling socialism a form of communism. You have another comment claiming it's the other way around, but regardless, the point is that they're very closely related.
And while the gun to the head probably happened more than a few times
The gun to the head is a necessary component of any communist/socialist system.
it's probably not relevant to this discussion
The original comment I replied to connected a dislike of capitalism with Zen Buddhism. Buddhists are supposed to care about peace in the world, not just silence for themselves. Communism is anything but peaceful. So it seems very relevant to me.
I think[1] it is a bit disingenuous to claim that every economic system is either capitalism, communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. This is not what I saw at all in the wiki page. Of course all systems have things in common, they belong to the same category after all, but each has its own unique characteristics.
By example, the Guilds system in Renacentist Europe. Is it capitalism or socialism? Each master had control of his own means of production, and hired both journeymen and apprentices to provide labor, but on the other hand, each master had to answer to the guild at large, and more directly to his peers in the same city. They had pretty strict controls over who could do business where, without intervention of the State, so in our eyes may look like a mix of capitalist oligopoly with socialism...
Except this analysis misses the point that the Guilds system was not about the control of the means of production, but about the control of knowledge and social status. Of course you can say that knowledge and social status are means of production, but that would be true only in a very abstract sense.
Regarding the "gun to the head", I insist it is not a defining characteristic of socialism/communism. Capitalism, and feudalism, and traditional economies, etc, all have their own ways to impose the will of high status individuals over the rest of the people, and more often than not this involves the threat of physical violence. That's why I don't think it is relevant.
[1] Disclaimer, my knowledge of economic systems is limited to 101 classes but still.
> Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization.
What alternatives do you have in mind?
A lot of the forms that predate the modern nation-state don't look much like socialism or capitalism because both of those (as well as, arguably, mercantilism, which might be distinguished from capitalism) really presume the kind of environment provided by nation-states as a context.
Comments
What alternatives do you have in mind? Everything listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systems#Types looks like either a form of capitalism, of communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. (There are one or two that might be considered distinct, but they look like they are only applicable at a very small scale, and even then they ultimately look pretty similar to capitalism or communism.)
I assume you're not just trying to draw a distinction between communism and socialism, since you're calling socialism a form of communism. You have another comment claiming it's the other way around, but regardless, the point is that they're very closely related.
The gun to the head is a necessary component of any communist/socialist system.
The original comment I replied to connected a dislike of capitalism with Zen Buddhism. Buddhists are supposed to care about peace in the world, not just silence for themselves. Communism is anything but peaceful. So it seems very relevant to me.
I think[1] it is a bit disingenuous to claim that every economic system is either capitalism, communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. This is not what I saw at all in the wiki page. Of course all systems have things in common, they belong to the same category after all, but each has its own unique characteristics.
By example, the Guilds system in Renacentist Europe. Is it capitalism or socialism? Each master had control of his own means of production, and hired both journeymen and apprentices to provide labor, but on the other hand, each master had to answer to the guild at large, and more directly to his peers in the same city. They had pretty strict controls over who could do business where, without intervention of the State, so in our eyes may look like a mix of capitalist oligopoly with socialism...
Except this analysis misses the point that the Guilds system was not about the control of the means of production, but about the control of knowledge and social status. Of course you can say that knowledge and social status are means of production, but that would be true only in a very abstract sense.
Regarding the "gun to the head", I insist it is not a defining characteristic of socialism/communism. Capitalism, and feudalism, and traditional economies, etc, all have their own ways to impose the will of high status individuals over the rest of the people, and more often than not this involves the threat of physical violence. That's why I don't think it is relevant.
[1] Disclaimer, my knowledge of economic systems is limited to 101 classes but still.
A lot of the forms that predate the modern nation-state don't look much like socialism or capitalism because both of those (as well as, arguably, mercantilism, which might be distinguished from capitalism) really presume the kind of environment provided by nation-states as a context.
Feudalism, for instance.