> No it isn't.
Yes, it is for corporations (monopolies are a more complex question.) Corporations are creations of the state; everything done through them is an exercise of state power.
Legally, yes. Politically, it's more complicated. The banana republics were largely run by the domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies. Just because the subsidiaries were chartered by the state doesn't mean they didn't have more power than the state.
That was an exercise of state power (often quite directly, with implicit or explicit threat, and in some cases direct application, of conventional state power), just not exclusively of the state chartering the local subsidiary, often instead the one chartering the parent.
EDIT: But there is the point that, especially in a weaker government, the private power of people (foreign or not, individual or corporate themselves) that own a corporation may be more relevant than government power in determining the power of that corporation; that's not really about the power of corporations as such, though.
In these cases, the centers of power co-mingle. See Korea's chaebols; the House of Saud relative to Saudi Aramco and the state of Saudi Arabia; or Vatican City's relationship with the Holy See and Catholic Church. TL; DR Rising state power doesn't mean rising corporate power. In many arenas, the two compete.
I'm not immediately seeing the distinction you're trying to draw here, given the topic-can you elaborate on this a bit so that I can possibly understand your position a bit more?
Corporations are legal entities. For a legal entity to have meaning, it must be based on a set of laws. The state creates and administers laws. Therefore, corporations are a creature of the state. Theoretically, the state has unlimited power to create, destroy and manipulate corporations to its will.
In reality, it's more complicated. Just because someone has a legal right doesn't mean they have the political power to exercise it. When President Miguel R. Dávila of Honduras attempted to exercise state power over the Cuyamel Fruit Company, the latter raised a mercenary army and staged a coup d'état [1]. There are numerous other examples of private corporations running pet states for their own benefit.
Once you rise to the level of discussing sovereign power, the distinction between a state and a corporation becomes meaningless. What matters is power--how it's organized is something of a convenience. (For example, try drawing neat lines between the Saudi state, the House of Saud and Saudi Aramco. Or between Vatican City, the Holy See and the Catholic Church.) We're nowhere near that point in America--the federal government could fine into ruin, jail the leadership of or break up any company on earth.
This meme of states always having more power than corporations because the latter is a legal creature of the former is overly simplistic. It similarly doesn't follow that a strong state means strong corporations. In many arenas, states compete for power with corporations. Teddy Roosevelt taking on the robber barons required a strong state; in contrast, Korea is an example of a weak state relative to its corporations.
Dictatorships are monopolies.
> by experience.
I think you meant historically. What ever did you mean by "theoretically"? Theory is less useful if it doesn't match practice anyway.
And?
>I think you meant historically.
I don't know what you think adding that adjective is going to change, but sure.
>What ever did you mean by "theoretically"?
I meant in theory.
I'm interested in an example of an entire country run by a private entity that was not a dictatorship. It doesn't help that the terms "run" and "private entity" vary from person to person, but something akin to the HEIC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India is what was conjured when talking about private entity rule.
> I don't know what you think adding that adjective is going to change, but sure.
I'm implying no readers/posters have "experience" as stated. The adjective is a clarification, in the case that there was something missed from the strange phrasing.