* From: Jim Devine Marx's story is one of _relative_ immiseration (a rightward shift in the distribution of income) as wages fall relative to labor productivity and the rate of surplus-value rises. To get _absolute_ immiseration, you need to introduce the idea that capitalism increases human needs (that Mike Lebowitz emphasizes), so that wages fall relative to needs.
^^^^ CB: That's right. I agree with Michael Lebowitz, and I didn't say anything other than what he said. What I said supplemented what he said, because Chapter 25 is where _Marx_ directly addresses what Walt Byars asked about. The ABSOLUTE ( Marx's word) law of capitalist accumulation does not have to do with an increase in ABSOLUTE poverty. I think he uses it for emphasis. "The one thing you can be sure of" is that at the other end of the pole of capitalist accumulation of wealth there must be an accumulation of poverty relative ( as you say) to that accumulation of wealth. By definition, poverty will be immiserating psychologically in what ever concrete historical period we are in. People in relative poverty today , relative to the wealthy today, may have more "absolute" material goods than people 100 years ago, but they are unhappy with their relative powerty. They are alienated,miserable. And exactly because ,as Liebowitz says, the rapid growth in needs under capitalism keep moving the ball on the working class. Capitalism inherently makes it impossible for everybody to keep up with the Jones. Also, the rich can't really be rich if there aren't poor people. If everybody is sitting around satisfied _not_ worried about bills, getting evicted, medical bills, car payments, free time, there's no advantage in being rich. So, the rich "require" that whatever the level of absolute wealth of the "poor" , their psychological experience of their material situation must be unsatisfied relative to the mental state of the rich. Otherwise, being rich isn't a social privilege. What is being rich if it is not a privilege ? How can it be a privilege if the poor are just as materially satisfied as the rich ? Such is the full relativity of poverty and wealth.
