I define “free enterprise” as the “system of natural liberty” advocated by Adam Smith, in which people are free to pursue their own goals in their own way, “subject only to the law of justice.”
I define “capitalism” in the same way as Karl Marx, who coined the word — a system in which political and economic power is in the hands of owners of financial assets
By these definitions, free enterprise is not necessary to capitalism, nor vice versa. What’s necessary for capitalism is institutions that allow great concentrations of wealth, such as limited liability corporations, lending at compound interest and the power of banks to create money. Government-protected monopolies help, too.
In the same way, capitalism is not necessary to free enterprise. The Phoenician traders in the ancient world, who traveled from the eastern Mediterranean to Britain to buy tin, were not capitalists in the way that J.P. Morgan or John D. Rockefeller were capitalists, but they certainly had the entrepreneurial spirit.
Adam Smith, the great economist and philosopher, did not particularly admire capitalists. He saw economic competition as a means to hold their power in check.
As for myself, I am not an opponent of either free enterprise nor capitalism, although I am a critic of both, especially the latter. I think the working of the free market is a more effective way to coordinate economic activity than central planning, provided that it is, as Smith said, “subject to the law of justice” — unlike Milton Friedman and others, who thought a free market could be a substitute for the law of justice.
Likewise, I see a benefit to being able to create concentrations of wealth and use them to create new sources of wealth for the benefit of society. American capitalists made it possible to create a U.S. steel industry, a computer industry and all the other industries. Maybe this could have been done in some other way, but this is the way it happened.
The problem is how to prevent mere possession of wealth from enabling its owners to monopolize the fruits of the economic system, which is what is happening now and which Marx thought was the inevitable result of capitalist ownership.
A critique of the ideas of Friedrich A. Hayek, the 20th century’s greatest exponent of unrestricted free markets.
An argument that competitive markets can only exist within a framework of law and regulation.