At the root of the definition of capitalism is “private ownership.” In Merriam-Webster dictionary, capitalism is defined as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods.” Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, characterized capitalism as a working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange and free private enterprise exchange economy121. According to novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, all property is privately owned under capitalism121. By the same token, economist George Reisman confirms the fact that capitalism is a social system based on private ownership122. Encyclopedia Britannica has the following definition: “capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy: economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.” Public or state ownership of the means of production such as auto industry or financial institutions is in direct conflict of the foundation of capitalism. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary explicitly rejects state ownership in its definition of capitalism as “an economic system based on private, rather than state, ownership of businesses, factories, and transport services, etc., with free competition and profit-making.” The role of the state in a capitalist society is more applicable to regulations of industry than owning it. The fact that government intervention to own part of the industry may lead to the stabilization of a turbulent economy does not make this intervention a valid move from the perspective of capitalism. On the contrary, this reveals a notable defect in the theory of capitalism which allows only one form of ownership, that is, the private ownership.

When financial and economic crisis reaches a point where the state interferes and takes over some of the failing institutions to prevent a wide-scale collapse of the economy, then the plight of capitalism as a system is questionable. The following dilemma emerges. If capitalism is left to operate under its own theories and principles of free market, free enterprise, and self-maintenance, then a collapse of the financial institutions followed by a failure of the entire economic system may become inevitable. If the government interferes and transfers the private ownership to state and public ownership, then the foundation of the system of capitalism is in jeopardy.

Federal Reserve chief Bernanke clearly identified the dilemma of capitalism when he said, “If Bear Stearns had been allowed to fail, the adverse impact of a default would not have been confined to the financial system but would have been felt broadly in the real economy through its effects on asset values and credit availability”47.

In the most recent financial crisis, the US government took over the ownership of several industries and financial institutions. It took over control of giant mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The takeover action has been described as “one of the most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades,”124 and one that “could turn into the biggest and costliest government bailout ever of private companies”125. With over $5 trillion outstanding mortgage backed securities, the failure of these companies would have been disastrous for the housing economy, the American economy, and the world economy126.

The US government seized control of American International Group Inc (AIG), one of the world’s biggest insurers, in an $85 billion deal that signaled the intensity of its concerns about the danger a collapse could pose to the financial system123. This takeover puts the government in control of a private company, which marks a historic development in the world of capitalism.

The government extended its property ownership to the auto industry. After negotiating the fate of the failing auto industry in bankruptcy courts, the US government acquired 60% of GM shares and almost 10% of Chrysler. The pretext for the takeover of the auto industry is the same as the pretext for acquiring financial institutions: avoid disaster to the American economy and the world economy.

If the financial crisis had proved anything of significance, it proved that private ownership of individuals and enterprises cannot sustain the economic stability by itself. Private ownership alone creates a unipolar economic structure which is bound to fail as a result of its own weight. This becomes more evident as the economy grows to virtually large sizes and its weight becomes too heavy to survive on a single pole. In order to prevent a total collapse, the governments rush to support the structure with two additional poles: state and public ownership. Capitalism, essentially, is a unipolar economic structure (a structure with a single pole). The irony is that capitalism creates an environment where the size of the economy grows at a very rapid rate. As a result, the crisis of capitalism continues to explode, threatening the capitalist economies to implode from within.

The sporadic augmentation of private ownership with state and public ownership can prove effective only for a short period of time. This will not prevent a total collapse. The reason is that state ownership is added to the system under the pressure of the crisis and not as a result of a well-thought strategy which reveals the necessity and importance of state and public ownership of certain segments of the economy. Under the pressure of the crisis, the state is forced to partially or completely own a segment of the economy without the least theoretical or ideological justification of the move. The nationalization of a particular segment of the economy pushes the economic system away from its regular course without defining a new path or course for the economy to pursue. The end result is an economy without a well-defined character: neither capitalism nor socialism. It is not Islamic either, as will be explained in the next part of this book.

For the sake of historical reference, it is interesting to note that Soviet socialism experienced similar deviation from its normal course when private ownership was introduced to the collective farms within the agricultural industry. This was introduced during the late Stalin and Khrushchev eras to increase the productivity of farmers and avoid a serious shortage of food supplies. More reforms in this direction were introduced under the Gorbachev perestroika plans. The argument here is not whether these modifications and reforms are useful or not; the main argument is that this constitutes a major deviation from the original course of the economic system. Such modifications cause the system to lose its main characteristic. Socialism as a system failed altogether in the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe countries. One major reason for the failure was the deviation from its normal course of action.

By the same token, capitalism today suffers from the urgent need to change its route and modify its course of action by introducing state and public ownership to the system, although in a nonsystematic manner. The rules of the free market are no longer the only rules that control the flow of wealth and the production of goods and services. The principles of relative scarcity and the price mechanism tend to blur and become vague in the wake of government sporadic intervention in the economy. The long-lived characteristics of capitalist economy, especially growth and predictability, can no longer be sustained due to the inclusion of new subjective factors in the formulas governing free market economy. Today, free market rules point to one direction in the real estate industry, while the government ownership of major mortgage companies force the prices in the real estate to point in another direction.

In summary, the two major signs of failure of the capitalist economy are the creation of virtual economy on top of the real economy and the deviation from the rules of free market by introducing state and public ownership alongside the private ownership. Virtual economy creates an illusion in the economy which allows the total wealth to appear much larger than its real worth. This illusion was made possible by the stock market trades, which exploit the relative values of things, by allowing money to grow through interest/usury, by detaching money from the gold base, and by disassociating the money from the economic strength of a country. The virtual economy is bound to crash and return to the normal values of the economy.

The introduction of state ownership leads to the confusion of the free market rules and to a serious deviation from the original course of capitalism.