>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.
So who or what created the value then?
> Those profits do not come from
>redistributing surplus created by other capitalist's
>workers. They come from overcharging consumers.
If consumers (meaning workers) are overcharged then it would increase their cost of living, in which case the capitalists who employ these "consumers" will find it necessary to pay them more. So in effect, the profits are redistributed from other capitalists' surplus value, so you can see why it seems so important to the capitalist class to minimise the practice.
> 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.
Everybody consumes, "consumer" is a meaningless word in the context of purporting to describe who wins and who loses. Besides, this ignores how supply and demand work in practice. "Consumers", as wage-earners, are essentially commodities themselves. To the extent that monopolies are successful in artificially increasing the cost of living, so must the general cost of labour increase. The cost of living constitutes an essential input into the cost of supply of labour, if wages don't meet that cost then obviously the supply of labour will start to fall.
So wages will be forced up commensurately with the increase in living costs brought about by monopoly price controls. If it is a true monopoly, that is no alternative can be developed.
So the only "consumers" that will be exploited, broadly speaking, would be the consumers of labour power.
Its not our problem.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas