Real competition vs. theory of monopoly capitalism

Many people on the left, who would otherwise be receptive to real economics, are attached to the idea that monopoly creates imperfect competition. As a result, they are likely to be skeptical of real economics as it applies to monopolization and in general. It is important, therefore, to address this sticking point head on and test real competition vs. the theory of monopoly capitalism on the topic of monopolization itself. In a research paper empirically evaluating monopolization, I compared these two theories and found that the theory of real competition was consistent with the data and outperformed the theory of monopoly capitalism. Focusing on US industries over time, some key findings include: 1. market share is contested (monopolized industries are not immune to competition) 2. firms enter markets wherever this is advantageous (monopolized industries do not present insurmountable barriers to market entry) 3. investment and growth spread throughout the economy (monopolized industries do not restrict investment and output) 4. firms adjust output in such a way as to minimize costs (monopolized firms do not generate excessive reserve capacity). Given the growing social polarization under neoliberalism, monopolization is an increasingly relevant topic to research. The ability to accurately explain monopolization is a selling point for real economics. In a nutshell, my take on it is: the dynamic between profitability and technological innovation, which plays an instrumental role in competition, conditions the growth of top firms relative to the overall market, driving monopolization (in such a way that competition is dialectically coupled with monopolization). Empirical Evaluation of Monopolization, Critique 51:1 (2023).