----------
From: Greg 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.<<<
I may be wrong, but I don't think Marx was ambivalent about the cultural relativity of the meaning of subsistence. Subsistence did mean different things in England as apposed to India or elsewhere. Ricardo utilized the bare subsistence definition through his adoption of Malthus' population theory, which enabled him to establish a moral foundation for the distribution of income and therefore the social benefits of free trade.
I think that Marx used a subjective meaning of subsistence as a way of forcing a conscientious reader to focus on the more important and (for Marx) 'universal' process of immiseration. Marx's analysis is enriched by his defining immiseration in terms other than some objective subsistence level, e.g., alienation from one's ability to express and enhance his or her creativity through work. Immiseration can be increasing in the face of increasing wealth among the working class, so long as relative surplus values are rising. Part of the problem with such a rich conception of immiseration is, perhaps, that it is difficult to fully grasp, harder to communicate to others than it is to re-tell a good joke, and even harder to empirically measure.
Insofar as increasing immiseration is tied to increasing rates of relative surplus value, it would seem that 'inequality' between the working and capitalist classes is the key to producing revolutionary fervor (sparked maybe by one-too-many recurring crises). It may be, however, that rising absolute levels of subsistence among the working class (or substantial portions of it) ameliorates the desire for change, especially if we are somewhat satisfied with expressing ourselves through consumption and so long as we perceive income inequalities and the recurring crises to be no big deal. I can see how the effects of crisis and inequality can be isolated on a smaller subgroup of the working class, and how the resulting intraclass conflicts can arise and cloud issues. It is also important to note that the interests of farmers and mfg workers conflict with one another in nontrivial ways, and that conditions have to be bad enough for both before they will unite around a single cause. Industrialization in the farm sector may change who we consider farmers, but I don't whether the conflict between cheap food vs profitable agriculture can be expressed similarly through agr and mfg workers?
It seems obvious that growing (not static) income inequalities not only relates directly to Marxian notions of immiseration and class conflict, but also to Keynesian crises in ineffective demand, even in the face of low unemployment. Note: my version of Keynes is the pre-NC synthesis (non-ergodic) Keynes. So there certainly is some tension between Marx and Keynes, in terms of the former positing (explicitly) a future without capitalism and detailing the endogenous forces guiding us toward some such future, and the latter being rather ambiguous (as far as I know) on this point, so the need to show how was unnecessary.
>>>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. <<<<
I think death being better than capitalist domination is a hard pill to swallow. There have been much more overtly oppressive systems and regimes that people have endured throughout history. I also think Marx would have, before death, chosen to be a mosquito biting the ass of his oppressor once a week if that was the most intrusive path he could take. It seems that the inevitable revolution notion depends on class awareness of not only the true nature of oppression (not in a monetary sense only), but also of the relative ease by which these conditions can be changed. The hard part, and maybe the nondirectable part, is getting people to a position where they see how easily it can be to take back the forces of production. I know the arguments about needing force and blood and all, so I am not trying to utopianize (a word?) the process of change.
In the Marxian framework the process of change is rooted in class conflict. Declining profits are part of the process but I think these only come about as a result of competition among capitals. For example, if there were one super-capitalist left and all others were working class stiffs and stooges, I don't think it would be necessary for the system to expand that profit rates fall. Immiseration though, could increase as well as the rate of surplus value. This may add relevance to Marx' focus on immiseration rather than objective measures of poverty, since identifying some measure would tend to lead folks to say "well, let's wait till we get there and then things will change." This would be the height of fatalistic determinism, or deterministic fatalism, or whatever makes sense. In addition, if it can be shown that the results of Keynesian interventions to 'save' the system lead to greater consolidation of wealth, then I can see how an end could be posited out of a Keynes' analysis.
Sorry for the rambling. I hope this makes sense, and that my characterizations are as correct as they appear in my own mind.
Jeff
>>>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