andie nachgeborenen : Only hypothetically, I mean, Microsoft's monopoly power keeps out people who would compete if it were not for the entry barriers and so forth, but it's not like there is a fixed amount of surplus generated that gets divied up between MS and all the firms that might complete in other circumstances. That is why it is incorrect to describe monopoly rent as redistribution of surplus. The obvious victims of Microsoft are the consumers. Of course sometimes it illegallys screws actual competitors. But they don't define the pool of potential players in a competitive market.
^^^^^^
CB: The great mass of "consumers", especially of personal consumption goods, are working class ( They consume commodities producted by Department II ( I think) companies. Department I price gauging gets passed on to Dept.II and on to Dept.II consumers.) They , the consumer-workers, pay the higher, monopoly prices out of wages. To the extent that the capitalist class gets another bite at effectively reducing wages, it is exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class.
^^^^^ Why do Marxists have a problem with acknowledging that consumers can be exploited?
^^^^ CB: They don't have the problem. The vast majority of ultimate consumers ( to whom all costs are passed on ) are working class.
Workers are also further exploited by taxation, in state-monopoly capitalism, to the extent that government production benefits the captialists disproportionately. Privatization aggravates this.