>>What fact-checking have I missed?

Like checking to see if the word 'authoritarian' applies to employers. Your logic supporting such an absurd notion is based on lazy leaps and non-existent critical analysis, showing a general sloppiness and irresponsibility in your proclivity to make accusations.

>>I wrote Capitalism, not a "free-market economy" which is a entirely theoretical concept that can never exist in practice.

This is just a pedantic, bad faith argument. Capitalism is synonymous with a free market economy in most contexts that these terms are used, and we can still comment on systems even if they don't exist in an absolutist form.

>>Only Capitalism and its concentration and wealth and power can actually exists.

No, capitalism is synomous with free markets, and concentration of wealth is totally orthogonal to a free market economy.

And as for ideologies, capitalism doesn't exist. What socialist ideologues refer to as capitalism is nothing more than people having a right to own what they produce and acquire in trade in trade, and to do with what they own as they wish.

This propaganda is intended to depict human liberty as unnatural, and socialist repression as the natural order of things. It's extreme deception motivated by a delusional utopianist fantasy.

>>The CEO of the company is the authoritarian ruler of that company, that's pretty obvious?

One more time, since you didn't read it last time:

Authoritarianism implies non-consensual interactions. People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense, and the people offering them jobs in this environment are not authoritarians as a result.

A top-down hierarchical structure also does not define authoritarianism. What's authoritarian is the state preventing people from trading their labor for income, to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology.

>>That doesn't sound very objective.

It's entirely objective. Objective reality deems socialism a crude ideological narrative.

>>No, it's not "the nature of reality". Other societies throughout human history didn't require selling your freedom most of your life. So that's objectively false. These are systematic conditions intentionally created by humans to the primary benefit of a subset of them

No, working for pay, or to raise crop to eat, is not selling one's freedom. That's a inflammatory characterization of doing what one must to survive and in no way involves an oppressive abrogation of freedom.

And economic history shows people being responsible for themselves, and being unable to pillage others, is in the clear interest of humanity at large, with societies that enshrined these principles of liberty and rejected those lies, like socialism, that rationalize tyranny, seeing the fastest reduction in poverty.

As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society, with your reference to "systematic conditions" that you imply could allow one to not have to work to eat, oh yes, Bastiat addressed that too:

"He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd.

The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. The Tyrant is still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government. We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it "I should like to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could you not facilitate the thing for me? By this means shall I gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace."

>>But they are? If they support the concentration of wealth and capital into the few, making it exclusive use to them, forces others to accept their offer.

You have provided no evidence that someone offering a job, in order to create a productive enterprise that will enrich both themselves and the consumer, is harming the worker by making other options worse for them.

This is just the zero sum fallacy that assumes one business' profit is another's loss, that centuries of economic history disproves and basic economics invalidates.

>>What? What are the harm, innocent party, wrongful accusation supposed to be here?

I explained very clearly, your disingenuous obtuseness notwithstanding. You're accusing employers of being oppressors based on the flimsiest of logic.