No, indeed, I am sure that no facts of any kind would dislodge your strongly held views.
>Another most uncareful and inaccurate formulation of what HG wrote. He
>wanted to demonstrate how despite an increase in the quantity of use values
>that the workers' wage would secure, Marx's theory of increasing misery was
>still justified: "The problem is thus...to explain on the basis of Marx's
>law of value the *tendency for wages to increase*, and at at the same time
>to show, without contradiction, how Marx's theory of increasing misery is
>justified, that is, his contention that 'in proportion as capital
>accumulates, the lot of the labourer...must grow worse.'. *Hic Rhodus, hic
>salta"
No, I think Grossmann is referring here to an increase in wages consequent on an increase in the value of labour power, due to the intensification of labour. If he was referring to increased productivity, that would normally be associated with a fall in the value of labour power, but may be associated with an increase in the use values the wage purchases.
The key point, which I am surprised you don't want to get hold of is this: That the worker's wage can fall as a proportion of the total product, but it can, at the same time, represent a greater mass of use- values, when total production has been increased.
>
>Grossmann did not concentrate on the increased intensity of labor (Taylor
>and Bedeaux systems) to the exclusion of the positive effect productivity
>improvements had on the real wage. And he certainly did not argue that the
>quantity of use values had to fall for the social and physical misery of
>the working class to increase.
Well, we are in the realm of semantics here. 'Misery' is a loose category. If by misery you mean relative wages (exchange value), they are falling, we are more miserable. If by misery you mean absolute wages (increased use-values), they are not falling, we are not more miserable.
I assumed that 'immiseration' meant what the CI theorists meant by it, absolute immiseration, as Rosdolsky criticises in his making of Marx's Capital. If you mean something else by it, then that's clear enough.
Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter.
All the best -- Jim heartfield