Can any critic of capitalism justify their criticism on ground of supposed monopolistic tendencies?

1 of frequent allegations against capitalism alleged tendencies monopolies. assumed bad, have never seen give rational justification assumption.

have never seen "monopolistic capitalism" critics
a) define monopoly,
b) explain why alleged monopoly price immoral or anti-social, ,
b) why valid assume state in better position know alleged fair price should be.

in particular, argument must deal following issues.

definition.
have monopoly of sale of own poetry. doesn't mean can charge whatever want, unfortunately. fred has monopoly of sale of own labour. ditto. how define monopoly distinguish situations there 1 seller of or service in market, , yet
a) not seen being immoral or anti-social? *and*
b) patently untrue can command whatever price want?

distinction between monopoly price, , price caused seller withholding sale other reasons.
@ point prefers leisure income working more, owing disutility of labour. in other words, withhold supply of labour market, because want higher price if sell. alleged wrong of monopolists. if fred withholds labour because wants more money per hour getting @ given rate, , @ rate prefers leisure further work, how conceptually different monopolist has, say, store of coffee, withholds supply @ given market price because unwilling agree sell unless price higher? each seller of or service, supposing, , each withholds supply in attempt realise higher price. why okay, normal, in 1 instance self-evidently immoral or anti-social in other?

alleged imperfection
argument monopoly price differs price obtain under perfect competition. absurdity of argument should obvious.
a) perfection not of world. vain hold standard of human behaviour in event.
b) same standard must applied state if policy response proposed.
c) there no way critic or state *know* alleged perfect or fair price be.

in summary, if transactions voluntary, basis of objection? why not answer questions of morality far concerns monopolies? market price *agreed* price. you're not *entitled* other people's labour or property unless agree. both parties need agree. why think right in cases, not others?

in event, if *possibility* of *voluntary* monopoly market self-evidently immoral, how can *certainty* of *coercive* monopoly state in better position? if criticism of capitalism on grounds of monopoly justified - , have shown, isn't - still non sequitur conclude that, policy response justified. if peaceful monopoly no good, why violent monopoly better?

one of frequent allegations against capitalism alleged tendencies monopolies. assumed bad, have never seen give rational justification assumption. have never seen "monopolistic capitalism" critics a) define monopoly, b)...

Social Science Economics Next