Monopoly and oligopoly is a intrinsic characteristic to progress of capitalism

i'm sure you've made a careful study of his work as well as the work of bohm-bawerk (who was schumpeter's professor and who identified as one of the "ten great economists")

Schumpeter had Karl Marx as #1. Also, Bohm-Bawerk had many students, half of which were Austro-Marxists. But ignoring all that, Schumpeter entirely rejected Bohm-Bawerk's explanation of interest--he denied positive time preference as a categorical law of human action, claiming that interest would not exist under the stationary conditions of circular flow. "We see, therefore, that our static system," says Schumpeter, "does not by any means explain all economic phenomena, e.g., interest and the profit of the entrepreneur." (Josef Schumpeter: Des Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen National-ökonomie, Leipzig, 1908, p.564.). Bohm-Bawerk critiques Shumpeter here: Bohm-Bawerk, "Eine 'dynamische' Theorie des Kapitalizinses," Zietschrift fur Volkswirtschaft Socialpolitik und Verwaltung, Vol. 22, 1913. 

Kind of hard to be a Bohm-Bawerkian when you don't accept his theory of interest.

and knutt wicksell, (who schumpeter also regarded highly and whose contributions to monetary theory were utilized in schumpeter's own studies of the business cycle).

Schumpeter's business cycle theory is actually comprised of 5 separate theories, all of which directly contradict the Wicksell-Mises theory of cycles. They deal with long-waves (post-Keynesians love this crap), short-waves, technological shocks, ect. He's also responsible for many of the endogenous growth models we see today.

[Edited: No need to get hostile =D]

Bohm-Bawerk's capital theory is very interesting. There are many different interpretations of it. Schumpeter believed that he essentially incorporated most of Bohm-Bawerk's framework, as did the neoclassical general equilibrium theorists. Bohm-Bawerk completely denied this. But there is some truth to these claims, which is why Mises devotes so much time to Bohm-Bawerk in HA (and to some extent in TMC).

#1. "ten economists" was written in chronological order. so he did not list karl marx as being #1, he simply discussed him first. 

#2.  i never said schumpeter adopted bb's theory of interest. however, i would be interested in reading those articles. could you please post links? or maybe indicate how you accessed them (i am assuming you found english translations)?

#3 i never said that schumpeter adopted ABCT. I only said he utilized kw's insights in his business cycle studies. this is not my opinion of course, schumpeter's intellectual connections to kw are elaborated here: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/27/13/72/PDF/MOSS3.pdf

#4 schumpeter's business cycle theory is actually fairly unrelated to most endogenous growth models. aghio and howitt have based several endogenous growth models on schumpeter's basic insights regarding the connection between technological innovation, economic growth, and business cycles (described in full in their textbook http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5058), but honestly they are rarely used.  

Need not analyze author for author of Austrian School. Ludwig von Mises and Murray Newton Rothbard admitted the existence of "natural monopoly", what called of “limited-space monopoly”. In Human Action, Von Mises said: " Limited-space monopoly is the outcome of the fact that physical conditions restrict the field of operation in such a way that only one or a few enterprises can enter it. Monopoly emerges when there is only one enterprise in the field or when the few operating enterprises combine for concerted action. It is sometimes possible for two competing trolley companies to operate in the same streets of a city. There were instances in which two or even more companies shared in supplying the residents of an area with gas, electricity, and telephone service. But even in such exceptional cases there is hardly any real competition. Conditions suggest to the rivals that they combine at least tacitly. The narrowness of the space results, one way or another, in monopoly. In practice limited-space monopoly is closely connected with license monopoly. It is practically impossible to enter the field without an understanding with the local authorities controlling the streets and their subsoil. Even in the absence of laws requiring a franchise for the establishment of public utility services, it would be necessary for the enterprises to come to an agreement with the municipal authorities. Whether or not such agreements are to be legally described as franchises is unimportant. Monopoly, of course, need not result in monopoly prices. It depends on the special data of each case whether or not a monopolistic public utility company could resort to monopoly prices. But there are certainly cases in which it can. It may be that the company is ill-advised in choosing a monopoly-price policy and that it would better serve its long-run interests by lower prices. But there is no guarantee that a monopolist will find out what is most advantageous for him. One must realize that limited-space monopoly may often result in monopoly prices. In this case we are confronted with a situation in which the market process does not accomplish its democratic function." - Chapter XVI, 6. Monopoly Prices. Murray Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State said: "In the first place, such a “limited-space monopoly” is just one case in which only one firm in a field is profitable. How many firms will be profitable in any line of production is an institutional question and depends on such concrete data as the degree of consumer demand, the type of product sold, the physical pro­ductivity of the processes, the supply and pricing of factors, the forecasting of entrepreneurs, etc. Spatial limitations may be unim­portant; as in the case of the grocers, the spatial limits may allow only the narrowest of “monopolies”—the monopoly over the por­tion of sidewalk owned by the seller. On the other hand, condi­tions may be such that only one firm may be feasible in the industry. But we have seen that this is irrelevant; “monopoly” is a meaningless appellation, unless monopoly price is achieved, and, once again, there is no way of determining whether the price charged for the good is a “monopoly price” or not. And this applies to all circumstances, including a nation-wide tele­phone firm, a local water company, or an outstanding baseball player. All these persons or firms will be “monopolies” within their “industry.” And in all these cases, the dichotomy between “monopoly price” and “competitive price” is still an illusory one. Furthermore, there are no rational grounds by which we can preserve a separate sphere for “public utilities” and subject them to special harassment. A “public utility” industry does not differ conceptually from any other, and there is no nonarbitrary method by which we can designate certain industries to be “clothed in the public interest,” while others are not.[" - Chapter 10 Monopoly and Competition (continued).

tldr

Please have consideration for you readers. Use paragraphs.