Jim heartfield wrote:
> 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.
The issue was what you made of the mundane fact that the value of labor power can fall with rising productivity. You said the resultant rising living standards were "clear evidence" of both the good (creative) side of capitalism and the lack of immiseration of labor. I said not so, and offered two counter points: (1) Cheapening elements of variable capital (v) is only one part of the picture. That effect is swamped by other price and cost effects, as well as the changing consumption basket that is the basis for the value of labor power. The very rising living standards you point to cause a rise in v. As a result, the value of labor power has been rising over time, not falling. (2) The question of immiseration, however, is not about changes in v by themselves. Rather, it turns on what happens to both money wages and the configuration of jobs (together they comprise the main determinants of income available for consumption) relative to v. Even a falling v would prove nothing by itself. I asserted that in the last 25 years wages and work changes have combined to produce disposible income that at times lagged the rise in v. If so, this is *absolute* immiseration--less money to buy a worker's social subsistence.
You did not respond to either point. Should I take that as agreement with, or acceptance of, those points?
Roger