On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Michael_A._Lebowitz wrote:
> In fact, Marx does not say unequivocally that monopoly involves a transfer
> of surplus value. In Vol. 3, Ch. 50 ("Illusions..."), he indicates there are
> *two* possibilities:
>
> 1. a transfer (and thus "a local disturbance in the distribution of
> surplus-value among the various spheres of production, but this leaves
> unaffected the limit of the surplus-value itself.")
>
> 2. "It could press wages down below the value of labour-power, but only if
> they previously stood above the physical minimum. In this case, the monopoly
> price is paid by deduction from real wages...."(Vintage, 1001). Implicit
> in this case is the increase in surplus value.
I'm not clear on how _product-market_ concentration in
itself can lead to higher sv. If the workers have the
bargaining power to achieve a given level of real wages at
some initial level of goods prices, why don't they have the
power to maintain this level of real wages if and when goods
prices rise due to an increased degree of monopoly in
product markets? I can see a mechanism of sorts, though, if
the increase in product-market monopoly is supposed to be
paralleled by an increase in labour-market monopsony.
Allin.