Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at
Sat Dec 25 05:21:07 MST 1999

:James Farmelant wrote:
:> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:47:28 EST Apsken at writes:
:> >Lou asked,
:> >
:> >> 1. Didn't Marx falsely predict the immiseration of the
:> >class? Why  has this not happened?
:> >>
:> >
:> >The quotation from Capital reads, "be his payment high or
low, the lot
:> >of the worker must grow worse." That is a more subtle
:> >and sophisticated  concept of immiseration than vulgar
Marxism or
:> >anti-Marxism comprehends.
:> I does, however, require some explication because when the
:> subtle concept of immiseration is pointed out to bourgeois
:> economists they claim that Marxists then have made the concept
:> of immiseration too vauge to ever be falsified.

If we take the whole global system as the reference, RELATIVE
immiseration is a simple fact of life (I would even argue that
ABSOLUTE immiseration may have grown during the last decade: this
has actually happened in my own country). Any investigations on
this issue, Patrick, Jim C., whoever?

Now, here is our strength:

If capital flows are globalized, then the reserve army is
globalized. One of the most cunning creations of First World
bourgeoisies (that is, the only ones that count on the global
scenario) has been to globalize the RESERVE ARMY but not the
WORKING CLASS. This was done by sheer violence, of course, but it
was essential for the expanded lifespan of imperialism. Thus, it
is easy to woo local workers (as Clinton did after Seattle)
while, AT THE SAME TIME, menacing them with the job-hungry
workers in the Third World. But these workers and their condition
cannot be understood unless one takes into account the myriad
political and legal measures that enforce widespread unemployment
CONDITIONS. There lies the kernel of the mystification. Global
capital, global reserve army, but NATIONAL working classes. Then,
one may say to the bourgeois economists:

You cannot be 'global' when it is fitting to capital, and forget
the globe when it is a pebble inside your shoe. That simple.

And, BTW: though Carrol is right in that they are not our
audience, we must be in a position to beat them at the sight of
our audience. We should, in this sense, take them as sparrings.
Thus, we need to mince their arguments and crush them. That's
what we Marxists have economists in our movement for.


More information about the Marxism mailing list