History of the "labour aristocracy" theory

[Zanthorus]

To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the upper layer, the aristocracy of labour...

I thought this quote was pretty interesting. I think I'm right in saying Lenin also had a theory of a "labour aristocracy" that was similar to the "semi-bourgeois layer of workers" that Bakunin describes here. So did Lenin get his idea from Bakunin? Can anyone enlighten me as to the history of this term?

[Palingenisis]

Thats an interesting question as anarchists and left communists seem to reject the reality of it today...However didnt Bakunin glorify lumpen elements?

[Zanthorus]

Yeah, the rest of the passage is a warning against the "semi-bourgeois", "aristocracy of labour" because they could constitute themselves into a new governing class and because they're the most saturated with bourgeois ideology and individualism. He then goes on to say that the "flower of the proletariat" is actually "...that great rabble of the people (underdogs, “dregs of society”) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase Lumpenproletariat."

[red cat]

I thought this quote was pretty interesting. I think I'm right in saying Lenin also had a theory of a "labour aristocracy" that was similar to the "semi-bourgeois layer of workers" that Bakunin describes here.

Yes, the Maoist three worlds theory follows from Lenin's conclusion.

[Red Commissar]

The meaning of term seems to differ from person to person. In Bakunin's words it seems to go into his larger criticisms of Marxists of his day, accusing them of being authoritarian and claiming they would in turn exploit workers for their own benefit.

The other meaning of the term refers to corrupted members of trade unions. Capitalists realized they couldn't obliterate unions out right. Rather than do this, they came to influence the leadership of unions more and more to make them ultimately keep their unions from participating in any sort of action that could threaten them or violent activity. In turn the union as a whole would be distant from the socialist struggle.

And taking some observations of Kautsky (I know) on the Unions,

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1901/04/unions.htm

It has often been remarked that the trades union movement, where it does not go hand in hand with an independent political movement, i.e., where it is not saturated with socialist thought, acquires somewhat the character of the bygone guilds.

It has also frequently been pointed out that this guild-like character shows itself first of all in that the workingmen organized in trades unions form and constitute, similar to the old-time Journeymen organized in guilds, an aristocracy of labor, which isolates itself from the unorganized workingmen, which raises itself above them, which pushes them down the deeper into the social mire, the quicker it elevates itself.


Any independent labor movement would be impossible, and the labor aristocracy organized in trades unions would be chained most tightly to the capitalist class and forced on by its own interest to help the advancement of capitalist politics at home and abroad.

It seemed to be a common term in the debates in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Even Jack London employed the term and its concept when setting up his dystopia in The Iron Heel.


But this failure to get possession was not the chief danger that Ernest had in mind. What he foresaw was the defection of the great labor unions...

This little conference in our home was unofficial; but Ernest, like the rest of his comrades, was working for assurances from the labor leaders that they would call out their men in the next general strike. O'Connor, the president of the Association of Machinists, had been foremost of the six leaders present in refusing to give such assurance.

"You run ahead too fast," O'Connor answered. "You don't know all the ways out. There is another way out. We know what we're about. We're sick of strikes. They've got us beaten that way to a frazzle. But I don't think we'll ever need to call our men out again."

"What is your way out?" Ernest demanded bluntly.

O'Connor laughed and shook his head. "I can tell you this much: We've not been asleep. And we're not dreaming now."

"There's nothing to be afraid of, or ashamed of, I hope," Ernest challenged.

"I guess we know our business best," was the retort.

"It's a dark business, from the way you hide it," Ernest said with growing anger.

"We've paid for our experience in sweat and blood, and we've earned all that's coming to us," was the reply. "Charity begins at home."

"If you're afraid to tell me your way out, I'll tell it to you." Ernest's blood was up. "You're going in for grab-sharing. You've made terms with the enemy, that's what you've done. You've sold out the cause of labor, of all labor. You are leaving the battle-field like cowards."

"I'm not saying anything," O'Connor answered sullenly. "Only I guess we know what's best for us a little bit better than you do."

"And you don't care a cent for what is best for the rest of labor. You kick it into the ditch."

"I'm not saying anything," O'Connor replied, "except that I'm president of the Machinists' Association, and it's my business to consider the interests of the men I represent, that's all."

And then, when the labor leaders had left, Ernest, with the calmness of defeat, outlined to me the course of events to come.

"The socialists used to foretell with joy," he said, "the coming of the day when organized labor, defeated on the industrial field, would come over on to the political field. Well, the Iron Heel has defeated the labor unions on the industrial field and driven them over to the political field; and instead of this being joyful for us, it will be a source of grief. The Iron Heel learned its lesson. We showed it our power in the general strike. It has taken steps to prevent another general strike."



As a result, driven back upon themselves from every side, the traitors and their families became clannish. Finding it impossible to dwell in safety in the midst of the betrayed proletariat, they moved into new localities inhabited by themselves alone. In this they were favored by the oligarchs. Good dwellings, modern and sanitary, were built for them, surrounded by spacious yards, and separated here and there by parks and playgrounds. Their children attended schools especially built for them, and in these schools manual training and applied science were specialized upon. Thus, and unavoidably, at the very beginning, out of this segregation arose caste. The members of the favored unions became the aristocracy of labor. They were set apart from the rest of labor. They were better housed, better clothed, better fed, better treated. They were grab-sharing with a vengeance.

[flobdob]

The theory of the Labour Aristocracy has a long history, and the RCG have written a number of fantastic articles in FRFI on it in the past. I believe the best one is available online, in 6 or so parts: Here (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1145-the-labour-aristocracy-and-imperialism-frfi-161-jun-jul-2001.html), here (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1142-the-labour-aristocracy-and-imperialism-part-two--frfi-162-aug--sep-2001-.html), here (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1139-the-labour-aristocracy-and-imperialism-part-three--frfi-163-oct--nov-2001.html), here (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1138-the-labour-aristocracy-and-imperialism-part-4--frfi-164-dec-2001--jan-2002.html), here (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1135-the-labour-aristocracy-and-imperialism-part-5--frfi-165-feb--mar-2002.html), and here (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/1133-the-labour-aristocracy-and-imperialism-part-6--frfi-166-apr--may-2002.html).

[danyboy27]

Where i live, we do have some kind Labor aristocracy, Mainly created by Labor Union who became litteraly corporations.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Argentinean Collapse featured a great participation of the labor aristocracy in the demise of the country's economy. By making back room deals with the corporations and the politicians, they sort of became a de-facto managerial class of skilled workers that entered into the ruling class's elite circle.

[Madvillainy]

Well let's not forget that Bakunin had some very confused and anti-proletarian politics and that this is only one example. Anyways I'm not too sure if Lenin and Bakunin shared the same theory of 'labour aristocracy' (I'm pretty sure they didn't though), although I think ultimately both were wrong. I also don't think Lenins (or marx's or engel's) thoughts about the so called Labour aristocracy have anything to do with the ideas adopted by maoists today though.

The whole theory as held my maoists today, by nature is anti-working class, the practical results of which only serves to divide the working class and in the end pits 'different' sections of the working class against each other based on their income. It pretty much rejects the marxist analysis of class and completely ignores the history of the workers movement.

None of this is really surprising coming from the maoists though, who time and time again show their complete contempt for the working class.

[Palingenisis]

The whole theory as held my maoists today, by nature is anti-working class, the practical results of which only serves to divide the working class and in the end pits 'different' sections of the working class against each other based on their income. It pretty much rejects the marxist analysis of class and completely ignores the history of the workers movement.

None of this is really surprising coming from the maoists though, who time and time again show their complete contempt for the working class.

Which Maoists are you refering too? It wasnt Maoists who set different sections of the working class against each other, Imperialism did that...Maoists just look at the world as it is, from the vantage point of the global proletariat and so recognise social-chauvanism for what it is. Does that mean we write off the working class in the Imperialist countries as essentially reactionary enemies? No. However as internationalists we see things from a conistently international point of view and think of the working class as a whole rather than the narrow interests of workers' within one particular country.