I don't disagree with what is put below.
I only ever said that Capital combines destructive and creative processes. Or, put another way, it is possible for the working class to raise its living standards, as expressed in use-values, while the value of labour power falls. Since you agree with that, I don't see what we are arguing about.
In message <v02130501630bd5cbf6cc@[128.112.71.92]>, Rakesh Bhandari
<bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> writes
>We are confusing two things in our discussion: the depth and width of
>social progress on a global scale in the last twenty five or so years in
>terms of certain criteria--life span, literacy, per capita income,
>inequality, unemployment, etc.--and the status of the Marxist 'increasing
>misery thesis.' These are two very different things. You are of course
>right that between say 1960 and 1992, infant mortality was halved, per
>capita income tripled and life expectancy substantially increased. But as
>we begin to look at specific big individual countries and the regional,
>income and gender inequalities within them, the picture becomes more
>disturbing--especially after the catastrophe of structural adjustment
>programs.
>
On the specific point:
>I once thought you considered yourself a student of Grossmann's; I am glad
>that you have clarified that you are so critical of him that you don't even
>want to take the time to understand him.
I once did consider myself a student of Grossmann's work. I worked with Tony Kennedy as a sub-editor on the Pluto Press edition of the Law of Accumulation. But textual exegesis is ultimately fruitless. Whether he had it right or not hardly bears upon the central question, is it possible for the mass of use-vales secured by the wage to increase while the value of labour power falls. I think Marx already answered this, a point you now seem to accept.
In message <v02130500630bd3da8530@[128.112.70.93]>, Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> writes
>Here the disciple is an epigone. For someone who advanced Grossmann, please
>see the works of Paul Mattick.
If you don't rate Rosdolsky, that's your loss. I did particularly like this salutary comment of Mattick's:
'Marx says somewhere that "the proletariat is revolutionary, or it is nothing." Presently it is nothing and it may well be that it will continue to be nothing.' (Critique of Marcuse, p91)
and this, that you choose not to engage with
'All social progress is based upon the ability to produce more with less labour. Capitalism is no exception.' p31
-- Jim heartfield