Leaving aside the introduction that reads like it was was written by a stoned middle school marxist and thefefore is difficult to get beyond, some simple critiques:

Divided wealth is inherent in the nature of the tool of money. Divided power is inherent in the tool of democracy. However, the nature of the power divide is different than is widely percieved. Like businesses, governments also are successful due to monopoly secrets. Functioning democratic republics are what prevent massive genocides, sometimes if not most often attempted in the name of wealth redistribution and with subtextual ethnic cleansing goals.

Monopoly is the bedrock of business. Business is the bedrock of preventing populations from being enslaved and killed by foreign governments, as global businesses fund militaries in a zero sum global wealth environment. That is, if you choose to impoverish your society, this means a vacuum for another government to economically fill and dominate. Strongly consider that anyone who wants you to be poorer hates you with a murderous passion.

In a global business environment, monopolies are essential to national security for a variety of reasons. As discussed, one of the most important being the ability to compete globally. There is no moral logic that can argue that it is moral to dismantle a monopoly for the benefit of competing governments.

The article's logic and conclusions are both childish and insane.

The time for railing against monopolies was prior to when the same types also wanted to create an economically globalist society.