Skip to content

The immiseration of the working class Marx was right

Marxist Analysis · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Marx's law of immiseration — the thesis that capitalism necessarily generates deepening inequality and the progressive impoverishment of the working class — has been vindicated by contemporary empirical data. The central claim is not that workers' absolute wages must fall, but that capitalism systematically concentrates wealth and income at the top while compressing the living standards of the majority, both relatively and, in key respects, absolutely. The author contends that bourgeois economists, from Paul Samuelson to the present, have misrepresented Marx's argument — reducing it to a crude prediction of falling real wages — in order to dismiss it, while the actual trajectory of capitalist development confirms it.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws directly on Marx's discussion of the general law of capitalist accumulation in Volume I of Capital. The article correctly distinguishes between two senses of immiseration: the relative impoverishment of workers compared to the capitalist class, and the absolute deterioration of working-class conditions measured against the historically and morally determined standard of subsistence. Marx's key insight — that the value of labour-power contains "a historical and moral element" — is deployed to argue that as capitalism develops, the costs of reproducing the working class (housing, transport, childcare, healthcare) rise, while the proportion of social wealth controlled by workers shrinks. The concept of "discretionary income" is used as a proxy for genuine freedom under capitalism: where workers lack meaningful surplus beyond the costs of reproduction, they remain impoverished regardless of nominal wage levels.

The article does not engage with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall or overaccumulation directly, but the argument is consistent with the broader Marxist tradition that sees inequality not as a contingent feature of capitalism but as a structural necessity of accumulation itself.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in November 2007 — on the cusp of the global financial crisis — and draws on data from the mid-2000s that already showed extreme concentration. The UN World Institute for Development Economics Research study cited found that the richest 1% of adults owned 40% of global wealth, while the bottom 50% owned barely 1%. US IRS data from 2005 showed the top 1% earning 21.2% of all income — a level not seen since the 1920s — while median incomes fell 2% in real terms between 2000 and 2005.

The article also connects immiseration to the global division of labour: the "dark satanic mills" of 19th-century Britain have been relocated to China and India, where super-exploitation of migrant workers from the countryside produces cheap goods for Western markets. The specific examples — cockle pickers dying in Morecambe Bay, a pregnant worker forced to give birth in a factory in India — illustrate that the forms of exploitation change but the content remains the same.

The conjuncture is significant: the article was published just before the 2008 crash, which would dramatically vindicate its claims about the fragility of working-class living standards built on debt and fictitious capital. The data on inequality it presents anticipated the post-crisis explosion of work on inequality by Piketty and others, albeit from a Marxist rather than a liberal framework.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is relatively compressed and leaves several questions open. It does not develop the mechanism by which immiseration operates in periods of rising real wages — the classic objection to Marx's law. A fuller treatment would need to explain how debt, the lengthening of the working day, the intensification of labour, and the growth of the reserve army of labour all function to depress the value of labour-power even when nominal wages rise. The relationship between immiseration and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is also not explored.

These threads are taken up elsewhere in the IDOM corpus. Michael Roberts' later work on the rate of profit — particularly his empirical studies showing the long-term decline in profitability in the major economies — provides the macroeconomic foundation for the immiseration thesis. The concept of fictitious capital and its role in temporarily masking the falling rate of profit is developed in Roberts' The Long Depression and in numerous IDOM articles on the 2008 crisis and its aftermath. The political implications — the necessity of revolutionary organisation to break the logic of accumulation — are argued in the RCI's theoretical documents and in Against the Stream episodes dealing with reformism and the limits of trade union consciousness.

Connections

  • Marx, Capital Volume I, Part VII ("The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation") — the theoretical foundation of the immiseration thesis.
  • Michael Roberts, The Long Depression (2016) — extends the analysis of capitalist crisis and the falling rate of profit.
  • Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) — provides extensive empirical data on inequality from a non-Marxist framework; useful as a source of evidence but requires Marxist critique of its theoretical conclusions.
  • Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845) — the classic empirical study of immiseration in its early industrial form.
  • IDOM articles on the 2008 crisis, austerity, and the cost-of-living crisis — contemporary updates on the same dynamic.
  • RCI documents on the political economy of the conjuncture — available at marxist.com.

Key Quotes

  1. "Capitalism is not only a breeder of economic crisis, war and waste, but is also a system of grotesque exploitation and injustice."

  2. "Marx never argued that immiseration meant an absolute fall in income for the majority. He did say that booms would be followed by slumps when a large number of workers would lose their jobs and be thrown on the scrap heap and their incomes would fall sharply."

  3. "The true test of freedom and choice would be if most working families had a sizeable part of their income that was 'discretionary', i.e. available to spend on what they liked. And they did not work too long for their incomes, so they had time to be with their children, keep fit, educate themselves or just rest. Anybody who cannot do that is impoverished - and this immiseration applies to most workers."

  4. "In contrast, therefore, with other commodities, the determination of the value of labour power contains a historical and moral element."

  5. "The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth... Half the world's adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth!"

  6. "The development of capitalism in the 1980s and 1990s has made sure of that [inequality]."