Nowell:
I'm in the process of reading a very interesting book called "Subjective Political Economy" which tackles the subsistence issue at some length. It argues that the Smith/Ricardo/Marx tradition is in fact ambivalent on this point, arguing at one point for "bare minimum for physical survival" and arguing at other points for some kind of relative minimum defined by social context, class, etc.
The point is non-trivial. Ultimately the "inevitable revolution" thesis rests on the notion that death would be better than living under capitalist domination, and that there is a mechanism (declining profits) at work in capitalism which will bring this about. My opinion: If you adopt the relative subsistence thesis, then the minimum wage level to which capitalist can push has a floor defined by some current standard. If all that means is fewer movies or no speedboat for vacation, then you are not going to get a revolutionary class out "relastive subsistence", even if there is a discernible profit squeeze leading to pressure on wages. The relative subsistence notion undermines the immiseration thesis; it points to Keynesian "solutions" to capitalist crisis, since ultimately an "upwardly mobile" subsistence level provides a level of demand that mitigates against the "crisis" of falling wages (for the worker, and for capitalists).
-gn -- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298