[tstactplsignore]

>Then he talks about corporate monopolies (anyone who's read economics 101 would tell you corporate monopolies are rarely result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism).

Let's talk about this point as a whole. Firstly, I don't think it is well substantiated, and there are numerous examples to the contrary- Microsoft, Standard Oil, United Fruit, telecoms, airlines, railroads- almost anything which requires significant initial investment to grow. But, more importantly- why distinguish between capitalism and what you call "state corporatism"? The corporations who lobby the state, or coerce the state, or even cause the formation of an authoritarian state in ways that work in their favor are merely being good capitalists- they're simply better at competing than other capitalists! When United Fruit coerces the US government into supporting a foreign coup, or a corporation coerces the police or military to massacre striking workers, or big oil asks for huge subsidies- it's no different from a capitalist perspective then investing in advertising or aggressive expansion, and all are about increasing control and centralizing power. If there were no state corporatism, how long would it be before a capitalist caused it to come about? Campaign finance laws, monopoly regulations, and public opinion can be rolled back or simply ignored until power is consolidated; the inherent unequal distribution of power in capitalism means that a comparative few people will always be capable of doing this. In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "If there are men in this country big enough to own the US government, they are going to own it". State corporatism, monopology, and inevitably authoritarianism are the end game of capitalism, not a perversion. You can't put limits on the definition of capitalism so that the second anyone is any good at it, and the most obvious oppression that being good at capitalism causes is then apparent, that suddenly it's "not capitalism" anymore because they didn't play by your rules in a system where the actual rules are what those with money say they are. Hopefully, this should make you more critical of the inherent viability of capitalism.

[MCRed]

Telecom-- a government granted tri-opoly. The FCC limits the number of organizations who can license spectrum in a given metro area.

Airlines-- government regulated, airports are local government monopolies and they limit competition.

Microsoft- Not a monopoly in any line of business

I have been waiting for a long time for someone to come up with an example of an actual natural monopoly that exercises monopoly pricing power. In every case so far, either they had competition, or government is the one that was limiting competition in the first place, usually by regulation.

[tstactplsignore]

Your requirements are absurd - Every business will be subject to some sort of government regulation that could limit barrier to entry. That's why your conclusions are outlandish- Microsoft was literally deemed to violate antitrust law in federal court; there are plenty of obvious historical examples (United Fruit, Standard Oil, US Steel); Pharmaceutical companies consistently exhibit price gouging in medical monopolies, etc. Furthermore, oligarchical monopolies, like the telecoms, are not somehow exempt- they operate, lobby, coerce, and consolidate power together, despite being 3 separate companies. Utilities are generally natural monopolies, not government created- the major barrier is the huge costs on upfront infrastructure, which dwarf any regulatory costs. Most importantly though, you failed to grasp the fundamental concept, that a government granted monopoly is not somehow uncapitalistic: it's hypercapitalism, the end goal of the system itself.

[tcbawo]

The seems like a life imitates art/art imitates life question. It seems impossible for a completely unbiased government free from favored interests. Every sufficiently large corporation exerts influence or receives favors as a localized tax source or employer of voters.

[pron]

Do you know why regulations in the US exist? Because of the robber barons of the gilded age.

[Turing_Machine]

You're using United Fruit as a counter-example to state corporatism?

United Fruit got its monopolies by subverting Central American governments, then maintained them by using the power of the United States government, up to and including actual raw military force.

If there's a better historical example of state corporatism, I can't think of what it could possibly be.

[tstactplsignore]

That is a large part of my point- natural monopolies, or more generally, any concentration of wealth in a capitalist society, rapidly progresses towards what you call "state corporatism" (but what I would just call "capitalism"). You seem to miss my main point - it was claimed that "corporate monopolies are rarely [the] result of unadulterated capitalism, but rather state corporatism"- my point is that state corporatism is the be-all and end-all unadulterated capitalism; the latter becomes the former, one is not a perversion of the other. "State corporatism" is merely a cop-out word to describe any inconveniently obvious examples of coercive forces within a capitalist society, so they can be dismissed as un-capitalist, and in some cases even twisted so that any laws which protect the public from unadulterated capitalism are guilty by association.

[Turing_Machine]

"my point is that state corporatism is the be-all and end-all unadulterated capitalism; the latter becomes the former, one is not a perversion of the other."

Sorry, that is simply not correct.

These are things that occur when the government has too much power. It doesn't matter what it calls itself. For instance, the Soviet Union engaged in plenty of imperialism (far worse than anything United Fruit ever did), despite being Marxist.

[tstactplsignore]

I'm sure we don't disagree on the atrocities committed by the Soviets.

>"Sorry, that is simply not correct."

We may be at an impasse, because to me and many others, it is not only logically apparent that capitalism leads to state corporatism, but verified by empirical evidence throughout quite a bit of history. Can you explain why you disagree - I'm genuinely curious and open minded. Do you think it is not to the advantage of a capitalist entity to lobby for and obtain a government granted monopoly? Do you think that it is not to the advantage of capitalist entities to influence the political process in their favor as much as possible? If there was no state presence at all, do you think it wouldn't be to the advantage of a capitalist entity to effectively create and exhibit control over one? Or, do you think these things have not, or do not, happen in reality?

Capitalism is inherently a system which encourages the consolidation of power. I think the key issue is that while you've presented "government" as something inherently different than private market forces, often the two go hand-in-hand. If all government power in a capitalist state was removed, it would be only a matter of time before a "privatized" replica of the worst aspects of government is created, only this time without even any pretenses of not being controlled by a capitalist elite. You say "It doesn't matter what it calls itself", and I think that's something that can be restated. Power is abused by many who don't call themselves a government. There is little to no difference between capitalists who seek to control a government and a people, and the authoritarians you have called out.