There are too many "not"s in your first paragraph for it to make sense to me. Maybe later in the day I can make sense of it.
What I am saying is that if monoploies exist, you don't have capitalism. C...
Indeed. I was taking a basic definition of capitalism as : the private property of the means of production and their separation from the work. And asking if you thought this was over.
Ok I get it. I am looking at it from an anarchist perspective that would take the state out of the equation, thus considering that capitalism without regulation would only lead to monopolies, implying that anarcho capitalism is not a possible thing.
If you keep the state and include competition into the core definition of capitalism, then yes I would agree that capitalism is over.
Ok I get it. I am looking at it from an anarchist perspective that would take the state out of the equation, thus considering that capitalism without regulation would only lead to monopolies, implying that anarcho capitalism is not a possible thing.
If you keep the state and include competition into the core definition of capitalism, then yes I would agree that capitalism is over.