The following quote may be of interest for it relates to a couple of threads (on 'socialism and the small farmer' and on Malthus): "His [Malthus's, JL] supreme hope, which he himself describes as more = or less utopian, is that the mass of the middle class should grow and that the = proletariat (those who work) should constitute a constantly declining proportion (even though = it increases absolutely) of the total population. This is in fact the *course* taken = by bourgeois society" (_TSV_, Part III, Ch. XIX, end of section 14, p. 63). Yet, has this been the 'course' taken by bourgeois society? Has the = proletariat (here understood as the working population) *declined* as a percentage = of the total population? As a matter of historical fact, whether one is looking at the advanced = capitalist economies or the world capitalist economy as a whole, I think the answer = must be: "No!". How Marx could have come to this assessment of empirical realities and = trends -- based on the experience in Britain? -- is odd. The above quote does, I believe, show a problem with Marx's theory: -- On the one hand, there is the argument that due to the centralization = and concentration of capital there is a proletarinization process which = results in the 'middle class' being squeezed out of business and joining the ranks = of the proletariat and/or the industrial reserve army. One could extend = this perspective to argue that the size of the IRA fluctuates with the trade cycle. -- On the other hand, there is the general law of capitalist = accumulation brought about by the increasing organic composition of capital. This = perspective suggests that the size of the IRA will increase as a percentage of the = total population over time. It seems to me that the quote above must be based on Marx's = understanding of the growth in the 'relative surplus population' that is an expression = of the general law of capitalist accumulation. The course of capitalist history does not seem to bear out the idea that = the IRA will tendencially increase as a percentage of the total population = over time. Rather, the course of capitalist history seems to support the = prior belief that the size of the IRA fluctuates alongside changes in the = business cycle. Do others agree? What are consequences in terms of *theory* of rejecting the perspective = that the proletariat will represent a declining proportion of the total = population? Have I got Marx wrong or is at least one aspect of Marx's theory wrong and self-contradictory and not supported by the historical record? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT