[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.