Currently Online 
| VGPolyglot said: since they still had private industry. |
To have a more fruitful discussion. What do you consider "private industry"? I personally see the private-public distinction as a false dichotomy which is one of the causes for why people think social-democracy is a mix of socialism and capitalism.
In my opinion, it is better to distinguish between individual vs. common vs. collective ownership and full property rights vs. usufruct.
Individual property is property which only an individual accesses and uses and which can be excluded from others. Think of the individualist anarchist's like Benjamin Tucker's and Josiah Warren's thoughts on property.
Common property is property (or non-property) which many access and use, nobody can be excluded from it, and a proportion (if not all) of the labor-product produced from it is commonly shared in a common-use pool. Think of Peter Kropotkin's thoughts on property. This is the basis of anarcho-communism.
Collective property is property which many people have access to and can use, but people can be excluded from it, and labor-product produced from it is kept individual. Think of Mikhail Bakunin's thoughts on property. This is the basis of anarcho-collectivism.
Full property rights are when one holds all rights to use, profit, and abuse a thing. Usufruct is merely using and profiting off a thing.
You can combine individual, common, and collective property with usufruct or full property rights.
For example, parts of the commons can be individualized through a mutual agreement with those who also use the commons, but maybe when individualized the individual only has a usufruct and the full property right to abuse is held in common.
Or maybe individuals pool their resources together to create collective property, but retain the ability to separate a part of this new collective property if they exit it.
Capitalism requires more than private property + markets existing. It requires the state imposition of private property and markets on those whom don't want to recognize or use them, and from this the separation and empowerment of capital (as a class) over labor (as a class) through depriving labor of its bargaining power.
A society without a state to institutionalize markets and private property, but which might have individual property and markets extant isn't capitalist.
I think in an actual anarchistic society all these forms of property would exist with none being dominant. I also think gift-economies, barter, and markets can exist alongside and complementing one another. Heck they already do today (albeit distorted by state power.)
