On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM, Ed George wrote: > > a surplus population is created, and maintained. It doesn't get > increasingly large - it expands and contracts with the rhythms of > reproduction - nor does it get progressively more miserable, either > absolutely or relatively. It is important to put it like this because the > begrudgers of Marx say that (1) Marx held to an immiseration thesis, (2) > this immiseration thesis posited that the working class would grow > increasingly materially miserable, (3) this hasn't happened, and (4) Marx > was wrong.
The begrudgers of Marx attribute the reduction of the working day and higher wages to capital. History says otherwise. Capital fights tooth and nail against improvements and then when "the political economy of the working class" triumphs on some issue, it takes credit for the improvement! Section 6 of chapter 10 of Capital presents a "textbook" of capitalist resistance. Whether or not Marx held to an immiseration thesis depends, of course, on how one defines immiseration. If one defines immiseration as separation from the means of production and alienation of the worker's capacity to labour in the form of the objective conditions of labouring, then the accumulation of capital is indeed immisseration. If one defines immiserataion as adulteration of bread, etc. then there are some additions Marx noted for the section on absolute surplus value in his 1861-63 draft I would like to share: > > > > For pages 106, 107: > > > > * "If the labourer can be brought to feed on potatoes, instead of bread, it > is indisputably true that then more can be exacted from his labour; i.e., > if when fed on bread he was obliged to retain for the maintenance of > himself and family the labour of Monday and Tuesday, he will, on potatoes, > require only half of Monday; and the remaining half of Monday and the > whole of Tuesday are available either for the service of the state or the > capitalist" * (The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties, London, > 1821, [p.] 26). > > > > > > > > * "Whatever may be due to the capitalist, he can only receive the surplus > labour of the labourer; for the labourer must live. But it is perfectly > true, that if capital does not decrease in value as it increases in > amount, the capitalist will exact from the labourers the produce of every > hour's labour beyond what it is possible for the labourer to subsist on: > and however horrid or disgusting it may seem, the capitalist may > eventually speculate on the food that requires the least labour to produce > it, and eventually say to the labourer: 'You sha'n't eat bread, because > barley meal is cheaper. You sha'n't eat meat, because it is possible to > subsist on beet root and potatoes'"* (I.e., [pp.] 23-24).!59 > > Pages 106 and 107 of the 1861-63 manuscript (pages 190-192 of MECW vol. 30) are worth looking at. They are the chrysalis of chapter 16 in the published volume one. "Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value" in which Marx states "From one standpoint the distinction between absolute and relative surplus-value appears to be illusory. … But if we keep in mind the movement of surplus-value, this semblance of identity vanishes." Chapter 16 is where Marx abrieviated his discussion of formal and real subsumption and integrated it into the published text. As readers have noted, it was great to see the extended discussion of the previously unpublished "Chapter Six" in the 1976 penguin edition. Ed also wrote: "if someone says Marx says x in order to argue that Marx was wrong but Marx never said it it is incumbent on us to point this out." But if someone said "Marx never said it" and he said something that could be construed (or even misconstrued) as the x someone said Marx says, it is important to point that out too. The Marx begrudgers are like Republican congressmen. The will vote against a bill and then go home and claim credit for new bridge funded in the bill they voted against. As Charles pointed out in a comment several threads ago, median income in the U.S. has been stagnant since the early 1970s. This was because of a historic defeat of the labor movement in the U.S., facilitated in part by the reactionary policies -- foreign and domestic -- of the AFL-CIO under George Meany and having its roots in the anti-communist purges of the early post-war period. The peak of union power in the U.S., Great Britain, and Europe coincided with the claims that Marx was wrong about the immiseration of the working class. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39292): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39292 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
