Making a great deal of noise, then turning tail while claiming victory, is hardly any way to prove a point. Ah, well.
If one's competition were undercutting the price of our offering, it might be an effective tactic to improve one's product, to thusly justify a greater price. Advertizing the superiority of a product over that of competitors also might help. Increase the market-value, or, by your definition, "use-value". Those $15 sneakers might be utilitarian, but they're not Air Jordans. You will not be "cool" wearing them. And so on.
Monopolies can be "busted" similarly, as the historical record has amply shown. Technology (especially in competitive, capitalist societies) is always improving; thus, a monopoly on horseshoes does one little good once the transition to motor-cars is well under way. Similarly, Intel (which enjoys a virtual monopoly on the manufacture of CPU chips, needs to improve their product significantly every 6 months or so, to simply maintain their market share against AMD).
When one deals with the dynamics of economic behavior, it pays to think outside of the box. Unfortunately, Marxist "baggage" is more impervious to change and openness than Samsonite luggage. Both use guerrillas (gorrillas?) to press forth their product. One expects that the metaphor this invokes, that of simian devolution, will be religiosly followed as well. Or so the antics to those in Seattle would have one believe.