The distinction that is so important 
for people in
modern capitalism, the defenders of it, 
is this notion of
private enterprise versus the state.
As if the presence of the state having
its own enterprises is something that 
undermines or makes us
no longer have
capitalism. This is strange
because every other system has
displayed both private
and state enterprises. Both free markets
and markets regulated
by whatever the government was.
In slavery, for example,
were there state enterprises owned and
operated by the government that had
slaves?
All the time. All over the place.
In feudalism, did the state
sometimes have its own
serfs like the private lords?
Yes, all the time. There's no problem
about having a mixture of
private and state. And nobody ever
thought to say 
you don't have slavery because
there's a state enterprise 
alongside the private ones
that has slaves. And no one ever 
thought to question the
feudal system that it 
isn't feudal anymore
because there is a state
enterprise with serfs alongside
private enterprise. So it's bizarre for
capitalists
(who are people who like capitalism) 
to think that the presence of a state
enterprise that hires people just, like a
private capitalist does,
somehow means you don't have
capitalism. That's bizarre
and doesn't kind of work real well. And
the same is true of a communist
enterprise.
Can a collective of individuals, who are
private, set up a business and
run like a commune? Sure they can.
Can the government set up a bunch 
of people to do that?
Sure you can. You could have private
communist
enterprises and public or state
communist enterprises.
So the distinction between private and
state doesn't allow you to separate
capitalism from any other economic
system,
which is what a good definition would do.
you
