[bregma]

Competition is the hallmark of liberalism, or a free-market economy. Capitalism and a free market are pretty much orthogonally related (consider, if you will, the ideal capitalist state in which a single capitalist controls 100% of the market).

The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth. It's usually accomplished by taking it from those who create it. Reducing competition enhances that accumulation, so effectively competition is the enemy of capitalism.

[cies]

> The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth.

Exactly. And I believe that the fact i have to explain this constantly is due to the very good PR of capitalism. "Capitalism is just free markets". No, it is not. Markets are not free, and capitalism needs more than "reasonably free markets", they need protection of wealth, no matter how much.

[hypertele-Xii]

Now you've got my brain in a twist.

What about the other extreme (apparently equally ideal) case of a capitalist state in which every single person controls an equal share of the market? Doesn't that sound the least bit socialist to you?

[bregma]

Not really. Everyone having an equal ownership of capital is not the same as a central representative authority holding all capital. Democaratically syndicated ownership of capital is closer to (true) communism and the complete opposite of socialism.