Seems very unclear to me. If it were true then rich tech firms and banks wouldn't constantly be treated like piñatas by governments, who very much enjoy fining and regulating them despite their protestations.

This is the problem with socialist theory. It's full off assertions that in reality lots of people don't agree with or which are clearly untrue, über they're taken to be axiomatic.

If you need someone else to force something they don't want to do (get a certification) you negotiate with the entity who has the monopoly on violence to maybe consider your recommendations. Then you need to wait for an opportunity (a mishap in the field, someone got their toe cut off) the monopoly of force might want to act on. Then you can offer a solution (a certification program) supported by your prior negotiation that makes the monopoly on violence mandate a requirement (your proposal).

The result is that you now offer a service and a mandatory certification and your competitors must go through you to be able to offer the service to anyone else or face the monopoly on violence.

There doesn't have to be any exchange of funds or favors. You simply offer the confused representative of monopoly on violence a solution, all you need is to sell it well.

> those with more capital have far more influence over what laws get passed and enforced than those with less capital. And that many laws benefit those with more capital, often at the expense of those with less.

This is called corruption and crony capitalism, and it happens far less than you might think in the western world, and the effect is far greater in socialist and communist countries, or countries that don't respect capitalist fundamentals.

You can have power and rule over people without the need for a free market