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.
Comments
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.