I wasn't using an overly broad definition of capitalism; I was using the definition you bring up here. Moreover, whether or not a market is perfectly competiti

I wasn't using an overly broad definition of capitalism; I was using the definition you bring up here. Moreover, whether or not a market is perfectly competitive is irrelevant. The point is that no firm wants any competition, and in order to maximize profit they must actively fight competition, the very thing they claim to value. What we have here is a fallacy of definition. If we define capitalism to be a system with no negative consequences (such as monopoly), then any real-world system with these negative consequences is, by definition, not capitalism. Thus we've protected the system that is precious to us. People do the same thing with communism ("That isn't real communism because..."). Economists don't really weigh in on what capitalism is very often; they discuss things in terms of markets, and any intro microecon class will tell you that monopolies occur in markets pretty frequently, with or without government intervention. Monopolies, competitive monopolies, natural monopolies.... These are all discussed early on in an econ program. Your capitalism definition is designed to make it infallible, and economists don't really use it. Source: I have an MA in econ.