Yes, the parameters being 'let's redefine full emplyment to mean not actually full emplyment'.

Full employment is a situation in which there is no cyclical or deficient-demand unemployment.[1] Full employment does not entail the disappearance of all unemployment, as other kinds of unemployment, namely structural and frictional, may remain. For instance, workers who are "between jobs" for short periods of time as they search for better employment are not counted against full employment, as such unemployment is frictional rather than cyclical. An economy with full employment might also have unemployment or underemployment where part-time workers cannot find jobs appropriate to their skill level,[2] as such unemployment is considered structural rather than cyclical. Full employment marks the point past which expansionary fiscal and/or monetary policy cannot reduce unemployment any further without causing inflation.

And so on, the capitalist definitions of full employment turn more and more into pretzels the more you read into them. At some point in the 70s they stopped trying to pass it as 'natural' or 'put people in the streets to stop inflation with this one weird trick' or whatever and said full employment is precisely that level of unemployment that keeps the whole system from exploding.

Capitalism's ideal state is slavery.