Bilateral monopoly

Marx here makes the very same error that ]. Pen has criticized in connection with the last-mentioned problem, that of dividing the benefits from cooperation. Pen observes that if a situation such as bilateral monopoly i indeterminate according to one particular model, this does not mean that the situation is indeterminate in itself Indeed, the last notion is devoid of sense, at least outside quantum mechanics. In the social sciences we never encounter phenomena that are accidental in an absolute sense, only theory-relative accidents. 

On the other hand there can be no doubt that imperfections of competition are massively important in actual capitalist economies, and that the Marxist theory of exploitation ultimately will have to consider the implications of this fact. 1 shall not here pursue the issue, but indicate where some further discussions are found. In 4.1.4 I consider collective bargaining as a determinant of the rate of exploitation. In particular, I discuss a passage from Capital III that has been adduced as evidence that Marx believed the wage bargain to rest on bilateral monopoly. In 4.3.3 I propose a distinction between force and coercion in the labour market, the latter involving the exercise of (economic) power. And in 6.2.1 I discuss how capitalist divide-and-conquer tactics may also affect the rate of exploitation. 

In the US states in which electricity markets have been liberalized, there are a variety of electricity firms historical suppliers which have retained part of their generation assets, independent producers which sell their electricity on the power exchange and bilaterally, municipal utilities which retain their legal monopolies, and new suppliers which compete with historical suppliers in specific market segments. 

---