On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 05:14 PM, hari kumar wrote: > > FWIW - I think that there are some common, possible confusions when > discussing immiseration in 'relative' to 'absolute'. It is probably > important to distinguish. > >
The following passage from Capital lends support to Hari's (and Bland's) view that Marx was referring to relative immiseration. By 1867, real wages had began their upward turn, reversing the condition of absolute immiseration which marked the initial period of industrial capitalism vividly described in the Communist Manifesto. Noting that relative immiseration was accompanied by rising inequality, Marx wrote (apologies if this reference has already been cited above): Let us turn now to the direct agents of this industry, or the producers of this wealth, to the working class. “It is one of the most melancholy features in the social state of this country,” says Gladstone, “that while there was a decrease in the consuming powers of the people, and while there was an increase in the privations and distress of the labouring class and operatives, there was at the same time a constant accumulation of wealth in the upper classes, and a constant increase of capital.” [39] ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#n39 ) Thus spake this unctuous minister in the House of Commons of February 13th, 1843. On April 16th, 1863, 20 years later, in the speech in which he introduced his Budget: “From 1842 to 1852 the taxable income of the country increased by 6 per cent.... In the 8 years from 1853 to 1861 it had increased from the basis taken in 1853 by 20 per cent.! The fact is so astonishing as to be almost incredible ... this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power ... entirely confined to classes of property ... must be of indirect benefit to the labouring population, because it cheapens the commodities of general consumption. While the rich have been growing richer, the poor have been growing less poor. At any rate, whether the extremes of poverty are less, I do not presume to say.” [40] ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#n40 ) How lame an anti-climax! If the working class has remained “poor,” only “less poor” in proportion as it produces for the wealthy class “an intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power,” then it has remained relatively just as poor. If the extremes of poverty have not lessened, they have increased, because the extremes of wealth have. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39280): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39280 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116301050/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
