yeah i especially hear from anarchists the criticism that i always attack the state and not capitalism or the corporation, and i think a lot of people now use 'anarchism' basically to mean anti-capitalism. now i do see the problems with capitalism of course, though i think that buying and selling and private property are important aspects of freedom too. i just want to note that even if i really thought nike was repugnant or whatever, nike does not have an airforce, atomic bombs, a prison system, etc. henry ford was a screeching anti-semite, but he just did not have the kind of operation that could put all the jews on trains to the gas chambers. for that, you needed a state.
i think that if you really could isolate these forces from each other, then the corporation would be considerably less problematic than the state; that seems obvious to me, in spite of all the terrible effects of corporate capitalism. but the problem is that exxon/mobil actually does have a military wing, i.e. the united states government. now we could try to re-isolate (or, isolate for the first time) these forces and pit one against the other. that seems unlikely to me and even if so they'd both be problematic, especially the state. but if you conflate them then you just get total tyranny: stalinism. so if you're constsntly arguing for more state control of the economy, it seems to me that that's the direction you're heading. communism as it actually was practiced just put capital and political power in the same hands: an utter nightmare. really that is also the system of a mubarak and a gaddafi. that was completely predictable outcome of state communism right from the initial theorizations! that's why anarchists couldn't hop on board with marx.