> The theory that workers are not burdened by taxation is Ricardian, and
> the Marx quote comes from a time before he had fully criticized the
> Ricardian cost-of-production wage theory. Once one grasps that
> "between equal rights force decides"--that the level of real wages is
> set by class struggle and not by the "iron law" of physiological
> subsistence and that it includes a historically won substantial margin
> over physiological subsistence
Hi Shane, the subsistence theory was never one of physiological subsistence, not in Marx, not in Lessalle, and not in Ricardo, though many arguing against make this claim as it is an easy strawman to tear down. Equally as populer is attacking the Malthusian population illustration employed, but not depended on, by Ricardo and in turn Lessalle. Also the "if wages can not fall, neither can they rise" non-sequitor employed by Marx against the authors of the Goethe programme, and later, bizarrely, by von Mises against Marx is a common, though invalid, refutation.
The subsistence theory does not hold that wages can not raise or fall, it does not hold population as determinatistic in wages, and it does not claim that workers will always be kept to the minimum income required for physiological subsistence.
"Subsistence" is used in the same sense as in "Subsistence" farmer, meaning the entire income is used for consumption and their is no surplus for circulation of capitalization.
"Subsistence" is clearly and specifically defined as living according the standards of the community, and not having any money left over beyond what is needed for childrearing, retirement, etc.
The "Iron Law" is a question of profit, the ability to accumulate wealth, it stipulates that capitalists can and workers can not.
Although Lenin's (Richard's) early point about the time dimension is important and quite relevant, struggle can not make a long term difference unless it abolosihes the wage system, as otherwise, some of of any increase in wages is lost to prices in prices and whatever is left over is captured in rents.
And even the degree that struggle can make a short-term difference is no longer significant, because capital has understood the money-illusion (as coined by Keynes), but labour has (and will) not, and thus labour generally only mobilizes in reaction to nominal changes, not real changes.
The Iron Law is a sticky thing, which is why so many want to wish it away, it is a problem for both those supporting political organization/lobbying as a primary form of struggle, for those supporting collective bargaining, and even for those supporting insurrection to a point. It is also a big problem for those defending the democratic and meritocratic pretensions of capitalism. This makes it's enemies legion. It didn't make matters any better that Marx and Engels, quite rightfully, considered Lessalle a traitor for scheming to instrumentalise the socialist movement to help Bismark conquer Schleswig-Holstein in return for universal suffrage.
However, despite it's checkered history, an understanding of the Iron Law is critical for understanding why worker's self-organisation of production is the only road to socialism.
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net