the_dunk_tank

Yes, essentially the same thing

Reminds me of that one famous episode back during the old sub days when another prolific poster tried to "debunk" Marx by repeatedly copy-pasting the definition of "production functions" and claiming the only way socialism would work is through marginalism, he received hundreds of upvotes very comment

lmao it was simultaneously the funniest and worst thing I'd ever seen on the old sub, leftist reddit in 2018 was wild

For the theory of monopoly to make sense it has to apply to both macro and mirco, sure from the individual consumer's viewpoint there appears to be monopolies everywhere (Walmart in a small town) but at scale we don't see that, we see vicious competition between enormous firms (and small firms) all over the world, Walmart may not have powerful competitors in a small town, but go to any plaza in the US what do you see next to the Walmart? Nothing but competitors; a Target right there, a best buy over there, a Home depot down the road, a Costco across the street, there's centralization of capital absolutely, but where's the monopoly in this picture?

Now over the history of capitalism there have been phenomenon that take on the appearance of monopoly (company towns, energy cartels, massive nation sized corporations) and sure you can assert there are localized monopolies, but as an aggregate across national economies small firms still exist in enormous numbers, and at the scale where the majority of capital is made, i.e. across national borders there's nothing but competition

Now there's widespread confusion on this matter because neoclassical economics implies that any firm at scale is not competing "properly" and as such is a monopoly, liberals and modern Marxists alike fall for it, but it's a fantasy construction by a tradition that was designed specifically to negate Marxist economics