The means of production in socialist theory does not include human capital, personnel. It's specifically referring to capital, in the form of infrastructure and natural resources most specifically.
As I've already said, there is no Capitalism in Somalia because there weren't enough raving ideologues which is also why Communism failed in Somalia. If every Somalian was a raving ideologue willing to die for Communism instead of having more or less natural human (to the extent that Somalians are human) interests then it would have succeeded.
You are definitionally incorrect anyway. A market is Free when it is unimpeded by the State, so no there isn't definitionally more to Free Market Capitalism than lack of government. The reality is that 'Capitalism' and things like property "rights" are imposed by the State and all of the hallmarks of Liberty exist as a byproduct of a rightly-ordered society which means putting people in their place by force.
The Liberal conception that Capitalism is a natural science and exists in a state of nature only impeded by the hubris of man and that man himself is meant to be "free" and anything imposed upon him is some form of slavery leads inevitably to chaos and tyranny which are not conducive to any kind of market.
This is what an anarchist society looks like. You are simply saying that there were an insufficient number of Free Market Bolsheviks to make it work, which is conceptually identical to the worldview of Communists. If you need a whole society brainwashed into your ideology to the point that they are incapable of competing along non-approved lines then you are basically talking about Bolshevism regardless of whatever idea about economics exist.
It's neither of those things. It's a system that disprivileges those without the mindset of a Merchant and promotes those people to success, and ultimately acts as a eugenic filter against all other types that fill niches within human societies who are necessary but do not thrive as Merchants. It's a system that breeds people with a leftist ordination at disproportionate rates and eschews the existence of people with masterful qualities or the psychological ability to make war and so will seek those qualities out in a foreign cohort. It's the ideology of a parasite that kills the host and then seeks out a new one. This process has happened historically as well, but not nearly as quickly as it is happening now because historically there was never an ideology that dictated that losing all of societies warriors, and priests, and aristocrats is actually a good thing.
Capitalism doesn't allow competition except along lines that are conducive to producing better merchants. All other forms of competition are disprivileged because they are detrimental to the economy. Capitalism doesn't breed predators. It breed prey. You can look at White Flight as evidence of that. Remove the wolf from society and the rabbits do what rabbits do. They run and they hide.
Capitalism is as dysgenic. It is the dysgenic trends of Liberal societies which lead to socialism.
East Germany was dysfunctional, but not in total collapse. So the human capital definitely makes a huge difference. It's more likely that the Soviet Union failed because of slavs, who are not naturally a highly eusocial, industrious group.
In WWII the German soldiers captured by the US were given work leave in North America. Released as farm laborers on their own recognizance who returned to the prisons under their own free will. The Italians were put in maximum security prisons and never stopped trying to escape. Germans made Soviet Socialism limp on a lot better than the rest of Eastern Bloc. Communism would never work at all in Italy for the same reason it never did in slavland.
