{ 
He might have found himself unwillingly embraced and 
joined by people who would say: Of course, wejhave always 
said monopoly is all the trouble. We have td fight it, to 
abolish it, that is all there is to it. 
But those, of course^would be wrong, becasjiie they overlook 
or ignore that monopoly is not a remnant o^feudal 
institutions which can be abolished like ananachronistic 
institution bound to decay, but it is an essential feature 
of t^e capitalism itself. This is because freedom of entry 
can never be realised when the number of pq^ple with 
sufficient wealth to exp$it the t^e technical and economic 
opportunities for gain are limited in relation to those 
opportunities. This is what Joan Robinson called the 
property qualification of entry into business. 
In fact the situation in industry is similar to that 
obtaining- in the case of rent arising from the difference 
in quality of land: There are different degrees of ./ 
advantage or opportunity ; and the best places are occupied 
by the largest wealth while the most modest resources 
have to be content to exist on a level of renumeration which 
.offers at best reproduction of the resources. 
'.Kalecki did not formulate it in this way but his formal 
// ^ 
theory which makes the surplus depend on the dgree of 
monopoly, can be easily reconciled with EEe aSEw 
si-vi O-u-, , 
Marx, on the other hand, in his endeavour to meet his 
opponent -that is the classical economist - on his own 
ground, namely free competition, was bound to look for the 
source of exploitation in the labour market.