>
> But monopoly power is about the distribution of SV
> in the form of
> profits, not about the source.
I think this a misleading way of talking. It suggests that monopoly profits are squuezed out of the worker, maybe by capitalist A, and then are redistributed to capitalist B by B's monopoly power. That is not an accurate picture.
The monopolist has a product that embodies some labor value produced by his own workers. He can change more for it than he could if there were competition because he is a monopolist. Some of his profits therefore do not involve appropriation of value created by exploitating labor. Those profits do not come from redistributing surplus created by other capitalist's workers. They come from overcharging consumers.
Another way to put the point is that labor isn't the the only thing that gets exploited in capitalism. Where there are monopolies, consumers get exploited too. The Naderites have a point there.
In saying these things:
I DO NOT DENY THAT LABOR IS EXPLOITED.
I DO NOT DENY THAT THE EXPLOITATION OF LABOR IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF PROFIT.
I just say that is not the whole story.
What's more, pretending it is leads us to tie ourselves in sterile analytical notes.
jks
>
> This is important politically for trying to deal
> with American
> populists like Nader, who are only interested in
> state subsidies and
> monopoly power, and not at all in the source of
> profit in
> exploitation. They have some lovely idea of "normal"
> competition and
> "fair" profit that completely ignores the issue of
> uncompensated
> labor, and live in some idealized nineteenth century
> world before the
> fall into big business.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest