Immiseration

[Phil Gasper]

>At 03:23 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>>see page 645 of Capital V1 (1967 new world edition).
>>After talking about the degradation of labor through advancement of the
>>machine process, to quote:
>>
>>"But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same
>>time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulatio becomes
>>again a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore
>>that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be
>>his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law, finally, that always
>>equilkibrates the relative surplus-population, or industrial reserve
>>army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the
>>labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus
>>to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding
>>with accumulation of capital."
>
>
>This passage demonstrates that Marx was not arguing that immiseration is
>absolute, but it corresponds with accumulation of capital. Capital cannot
>accumulate beyond a certain point way below the total social labour of the
>society, and in practice it is fettered by the limited spending power of
>the masses.
>
>The total volume of use values available to a society may rise with
>productivity, but that is not the same point.
>
>Nor is the fact that inflation of the currency may appear to lead to a
>continual rise in capital. But as a proportion of the total social labour,
>it is finite.
>
>Chris Burford

There is a good discussion of how Marx's views on wages developed from a
crude subsistence theory borrowed from Ricardo to the much more
sophisticated account in Capital, in Chapter 9 of Ernest Mandel's *The
Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx* (Monthly Review, 1971).
Most of the criticisms and misunderstandings of Marx raised in previous
posts to this thread are dealt with there.

Phil Gasper
ptrg at sirius.com
415-522-1895