Role of the Labor Aristocracy

[A.R.Amistad]

There should be no doubt that Lenin was correct when he assessed that, with the advent of capitalistic Imperialism, its highest stage, the working class of the industrialized nations are "content" because the capitalist class can afford to pay them higher wages, thus thwarting the revolution and also redirecting the lowest paid wage-labor to the third world. I also think that Lenin made a good point by saying that it would take a working class in the third world to spark revolutionary fervor for the labor aristocracy in the industrialized nations, but I don't think this is entirely a requirement. If we look back at the bourgeois revolutions, we can see that the first and most successful of them occurred in places where the revolutionary class had already gained many concessions (i.e., benign neglect in America, rights of parliament in England, national assembly in France, etc.) So it is theoretically possible that the working class of industrialized nations, including the labor aristocracy, may in fact be better equipped for revolution since they have access to more knowledge, relative political freedom and economic security. But then you also risk that the labor aristocracy will be too content to lead a revolution and needs to be pushed on by the more oppressed sections of the world working class. My point: it could go either way, I suppose. Thoughts?

[Hiero]

Due to their class nature, they have a real position in the world economy, they wont dvelop or identify with revolutionary ideas. They won't go beyond social democracy.

[A.R.Amistad]

Due to their class nature, they have a real position in the world economy, they wont dvelop or identify with revolutionary ideas. They won't go beyond social democracy.

Of course, not by themselves. The Labor Aristocracy must remain in solidarity with the rest of the working class, but this doesn't downplay its role. Certain members of the Labor Aristocracy could become active in and identify the revolutionary movement. In fact, they have and they do most intellectuals come from the Labor Aristocracy and we have no shortage of intellectuals in our movement. Same can be said about union leaders and even some members.

[Hiero]

Yeah I guess they can make a concious choice for socailism. I think now, the labour aristocracy is happy to ride capitalism out and the economic crisis. Their political action during the economic crisis was to maintain and prolong the current situation, not change the system. I think during a real economic crises (the bourgeiosie bankrupts itself and can't pay wages) brought on by political crises within imperialism the labour aristocracy will realise that the system at home has to change. But the choice can be socialism or fascism, to turn expliotation inwards at a extreme intensity and create a war economy.

Since they are born out of imperialism, they wont choose suicide and destroy imperialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This rather odd 'theory' is put to the sword here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm

[A.R.Amistad]

But I am technically of the labor aristocracy. I am a member of a revolutionary party and I engage in activity to benefit the less privileged members of the working class. Is it impossible for others like me to be radicalized? Does the labor aristocracy have absolutely no place in revolution? I agree, as of now they are too drugged up over capitalism with their own situation, but I think during times of mass radicalization, a good size of them can be radicalized and come to aid the proletarian revolution. We shouldn't write all of them off as reformists.

[robbo203]

There should be no doubt that Lenin was correct when he assessed that, with the advent of capitalistic Imperialism, its highest stage, the working class of the industrialized nations are "content" because the capitalist class can afford to pay them higher wages, thus thwarting the revolution and also redirecting the lowest paid wage-labor to the third world. I also think that Lenin made a good point by saying that it would take a working class in the third world to spark revolutionary fervor for the labor aristocracy in the industrialized nations, but I don't think this is entirely a requirement. If we look back at the bourgeois revolutions, we can see that the first and most successful of them occurred in places where the revolutionary class had already gained many concessions (i.e., benign neglect in America, rights of parliament in England, national assembly in France, etc.) So it is theoretically possible that the working class of industrialized nations, including the labor aristocracy, may in fact be better equipped for revolution since they have access to more knowledge, relative political freedom and economic security. But then you also risk that the labor aristocracy will be too content to lead a revolution and needs to be pushed on by the more oppressed sections of the world working class. My point: it could go either way, I suppose. Thoughts?


The "labour aristocracy" thesis is rubbish. Why do people continue to believe this bunkum? There is no evidence for it whatsover.

Lenin's claim that a stratum of the working class (he even suggest the working class as a whole at one point) in the developed countries shared in the "superprofits" that the capitalists in these countires enjoyed as a result of their investments in the developing world. But how large are these investments:

Imperialist investment, particularly in the global South, represents a tiny portion of global capitalist investment. Foreign direct investment makes up only 5% of total world investment - that is to say, 95% of total capitalist investment takes place within the boundaries of each industrialized country. Of that five percent of total global investment that is foreign direct investment, nearly three-quarters flow from one industrialized country - one part of the global North - to another. Thus only 1.25% of total world investment flows from the global North to the global South. It is not surprising that the global South accounts for only 20% of global manufacturing output, mostly in labor-intensive industries such as clothing, shoes, auto parts and simple electronics. ("The Labor Aristocracy Myth" , International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV381 - September 2006)

Logically speaking, the labour arisocracy thesis makes no sense. Why would capitalists want to "bribe" a labour aristocracy and yet still feel the need to resist their wage demands? Why would three quarters of FDIs go into high wage (high cost) parts of the world when there are supposedly superprofits to be made elsewhere?

There is little if any correlation between wage levels and the spatial pattern of investment. Wage levels are determined by quite other factors than this. Tony Cliff I think wrote an article years ago which completely exploded the whole labour aristocracy myth by pointing out that wage differentials were actually greater in European countries that did not have any colonies abroad or whose capitalists did not invest abroad.

[Devrim]

The "labour aristocracy" thesis is rubbish. Why do people continue to believe this bunkum? There is no evidence for it whatsover.

You are right. I think it is also very correct to say it clearly. This is nonsense.

Also, it is used to mean different things. I have heard the Labour aristocracy theory used to mean everything from a small minority of Western trade union leaders, and labour movement officials to the entire Western working class.

Our take on it is here:

The ‘labour aristocracy’: a sociological theory to divide the working class (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3101)

Devrim

[FSL]

The leader of the private sector union in Greece has an annual income of about 150k euros or 200k dollars. He doesn't actually work, he's simply appointed in the directing board of some of the biggest companies here and he simply "looks after" the interest of the employees. Needless to say, the country is one step away from the IMF and he doesn't think it's necessary to call even a bloody one-day strike.

How's that for proving the existence of a labor aristocracy? The cause can be the subject of a debate but it's definitely there. Most definitely.

[robbo203]

The leader of the private sector union in Greece has an annual income of about 150k euros or 200k dollars. He doesn't actually work, he's simply appointed in the directing board of some of the biggest companies here and he simply "looks after" the interest of the employees. Needless to say, the country is one step away from the IMF and he doesn't think it's necessary to call even a bloody one-day strike.

How's that for proving the existence of a labor aristocracy? The cause can be the subject of a debate but it's definitely there. Most definitely.


How on earth does this "prove" the labour aristocacy thesis? You might arguably say a "labour aristocracy" exists in a sociological sense - that is to say, a small stratum of relatively well paid workers. However, the leninist "labour aristocracy thesis" says much more than this. It make the utterly unwarranted claim that this stratum of workers is actually "bribed" by the capitalist class out of the superprofits made from investments in the so called Third World. Thats rubbish and even if you could demonstrate a link in this case between the high income of this particular individual and the superprofits resulting from third world investments, we are only talking about one individual here , not a stratum of workers, and this not, sociologically speaking, significant.

So many of Lenin's ideas have demonstrably been shown to be wrong and feebly conceived. This is a case in point. The sooner we discard the discredited Leninist way of looking at things the better!

[Hiero]

Do people not live in the first world? Or are you just blind to what your senses tell you?

I can speak from a empirical and observational level that is there is a labour aristocracy and it is a stratum of workers. There are people in the west who are engaged in labour and earning significant amount of money that they have no need or want for a revolution.

Coming back from a trip to Pakistan back to Australia, where in the first instance I moved through various working class areas which are basically slums, to a train ride through the city of Perth, I can visually see that there is something going on in regards to the third world workers realtion to imperialism and first world works realtion to imperialism.

Now someone like Devrim would even deny there own senses and say that the fully employed worker in Australian surburbia is qualatively in the same catergory as a worker from a Lahore slum.

This is a ridiclious cultural reading of Marx and the creation of essentialist imaginaries of the working class. People need to move out these stale readings of Marx, your movement and theory is DEAD.

Labour aristocracy is a Marxist-Leninist explanation of this very phenomena that can be visually experienced.

[robbo203]

Do people not live in the first world? Or are you just blind to what your senses tell you?

I can speak from a empirical and observational level that is there is a labour aristocracy and it is a stratum of workers. There are people in the west who are engaged in labour and earning significant amount of money that they have no need or want for a revolution.

Coming back from a trip to Pakistan back to Australia, where in the first instance I moved through various working class areas which are basically slums, to a train ride through the city of Perth, I can visually see that there is something going on in regards to the third world workers realtion to imperialism and first world works realtion to imperialism.

Now someone like Devrim would even deny there own senses and say that the fully employed worker in Australian surburbia is qualatively in the same catergory as a worker from a Lahore slum.

This is a ridiclious cultural reading of Marx and the creation of essentialist imaginaries of the working class. People need to move out these stale readings of Marx, your movement and theory is DEAD.

Labour aristocracy is a Marxist-Leninist explanation of this very phenomena that can be visually experienced.

You are not paying attention, are you?

Nobody is denying the empirical truth of the matter that some workers are paid considerably more than others or that workers in the West are paid considerably more than those in the so called Third World. But this is not the issue, is it?

Do you understand what the Labour Aristocracy thesis is about? It is the claim advanced by Lenin that a stratum of workers in the West - the so called labour aristocracy - are effectively "bribed" by the capitalist class in the imperialist countries and share in the "superprofits" enjoyed by this class as a result of it investing capital in the Third World

This theory has been shown to be demonstrably false on both theoretical and empirical grounds. If you think otherwise well then lets see your evidence.

[Yehuda Stern]

The evidence is the hold of reformism and centrism of different shades on the labor movement. Those who deny that there is a labor aristocracy at best do not understand reformism, and at worst defend it as an anti-working class, bourgeois ideology.

[robbo203]

The evidence is the hold of reformism and centrism of different shades on the labor movement. Those who deny that there is a labor aristocracy at best do not understand reformism, and at worst defend it as an anti-working class, bourgeois ideology.

Again, this is an Aunt sally argument. No one is denying there are significant income differentials within the working class. The issue is whether a stratum of workers are actually bribed out of the supposed superprofits that capitalist obtain from investments in the so called Third World. The relationship between reformism and the socalled labour aristocracy is tenuous to say the least. There is no reason to think that because one worker is better paid than another that he or she is more likely to support capitalism. Plenty of poorly paid workers fully support capitalism and place their trust in capitalist politicians to deliver reforms

[Zanthorus]

I don't necessarily believe that Lenin's idea of a stratum of the working class being "bought off" by Imperialism is correct however I do think there is a "labour aristocracy" consisting of trade union beuracrats and social-democratic politicians who have a definite class interest in reformist politics. This is not because they are "bought off" by imperialism but because the only reason for the existence of their class is to fight the capitalists within the context of capitalism and win reforms from the capitalists. If the capitalists dissapear the need for trade unions and reformist parties dissapear and the labour aristocracy loses the reason for it's privileged role, so they take on positions which while supporting the workers short term interests opposes the long term goals of the working class and forces the labour aristocracy, in the last instance, to side with and integrate themselves into the capitalist state.

Because the labour aristocracy is integrated into the state and the current epoch of capitalism is Imperialistic the labour aristocrats end up supporting Imperialism.

[Devrim]

Coming back from a trip to Pakistan back to Australia, where in the first instance I moved through various working class areas which are basically slums, to a train ride through the city of Perth, I can visually see that there is something going on in regards to the third world workers realtion to imperialism and first world works realtion to imperialism.

Now someone like Devrim would even deny there own senses and say that the fully employed worker in Australian surburbia is qualatively in the same catergory as a worker from a Lahore slum.

To say that the idea that Western workers are bought of is nonsense doesn't mean that there aren't differences within the working class.

Devrim

[A.R.Amistad]

It seems like a drive through suburbia would confirm Lenin's idea that there is an upper crust of the proletariat that is comfortable enough not to politically and economically challenge their situation.

[Devrim]

It seems like a drive through suburbia would confirm Lenin's idea that there is an upper crust of the proletariat that is comfortable enough not to politically and economically challenge their situation.

The fact that some workers aren't completely impoverised does not mean that they are 'bought off with super profits'.

Devrim

[syndicat]

some MLs who buy into the labor aristorcracy thesis say the working class of the first world is a labor aristocracy bought off with plunder from exploitation of the third world.

this thesis doesn't hold water however. first of all, as the snippet robbo203 quoted points out, only a small fraction of profits of companies based in the core capitalist countries is derived from the third world...even tho it is true they make superprofits there. Most investment in the first world is internally generated and invested across borders mainly in the first world. this investment over time did contribute to rising productivity. rising productivity made it possible for workers to demand higher wages. but the employers do not share their loot with workers voluntarily or "to buy them off." they cough up only when working class self-activity forces them to. this is shown by the fact that real wages in the USA have dropped since the late '60s but productivity since then has gone up about 73%.

relative passivity of the working class in the core countries is derived from the bureaucratization and conservatization of unions and working class milieux after World War 2, which has made it difficult to revive the traditions of militant struggle that existed before World War 2. this is particularly true of the USA. in the case of the USA repression against the radical left during and after World War 2 played a role tho bureaucratization of the labor movement has deeper roots.

[Hiero]

You are not paying attention, are you?

Nobody is denying the empirical truth of the matter that some workers are paid considerably more than others or that workers in the West are paid considerably more than those in the so called Third World. But this is not the issue, is it?

Do you understand what the Labour Aristocracy thesis is about? It is the claim advanced by Lenin that a stratum of workers in the West - the so called labour aristocracy - are effectively "bribed" by the capitalist class in the imperialist countries and share in the "superprofits" enjoyed by this class as a result of it investing capital in the Third World

This theory has been shown to be demonstrably false on both theoretical and empirical grounds. If you think otherwise well then lets see your evidence.


I don't think you have been paying attention or are ignorant of the overall debate about the LA theory on revleft.

At one stage (not in this thread) there were people arguing that the differences of living standards of the first world and third world are invalid. This was based on cost of living, the arguement was that while a worker in China may only be paid $1 or less a day, a bowl of rice costs 5 cents.

This arguement kept getting to the point where all observations of difference between 1st world and 3rd world were ignored and claimed to be abstract, that is people denied a material difference between 1st world workers and third world workers. This went to the point that some people claim that there is no third world and first world and based on a decontextual arguement that if your simply work, under any conditions or rate of pay, that you are politically, economically and cultural in the same boat, that is a proleteriat with revolutionary potential.

My attempt was to show that to the people that differences between first world and third world are so sharp that this is a qualitative difference not just a quantative difference. And to do so before this ridicilious claims arised.

Comments like this:


The fact that some workers aren't completely impoverised does not mean that they are 'bought off with super profits'.



relative passivity of the working class in the core countries is derived from the bureaucratization and conservatization of unions and working class milieux after World War

Workers in the surburbs that A.R.Amistad refered to are a long way from "impoverished". Devrim's choice of words reflect his ideology on the class situation. It is not like they are simply getting a bit more then the impoverished working class, they are living quiet well off, they are able to reproduce their conditions of existance every week and able to save and take out huge loans. They have some form of capital.

Now they claim that the working class is passive because of the unionis is rubbish. In most cases the working class is not involved with the unions, their ideology is not the unions, but that of the ruling class. But this isn't a false consciousness, if they look around they don't want to lose what they have built over the last few decades. The ideaology of the ruling class is now closer to the conditions of then majority working class then ever before. They are infact reformist, even the trade union consciousness has disappeared.

People simple revert back to orthodox Marxism in blind sight of what is really happening to the working class. I don't mean the overall working class, but a majority of the stable, fully employed, trained working class. While we are seeing alot of the workforce become casualised, through this proccess they actually lose their political force as they become only momentarily related to the means of production, what exactly what are they to reappriopriate? The workers that are fully employed can't risk militancy, unless it is cultural accepted like in the waterfront but this amounts to play militancy. There is no social force that is revolutionary then, if the mass casual and non skilled force becomes militant, they have not objective goal (as in revolutionary reppriopriation of the means of production) other then to become this privelege fulltime and skilled working force, which the first world can not offer.

Criticisim Lenin's LA theory lacks a critical analysis of the current conditions. At most these criticis return to old Marxism and we are assumed to believe that every political act of the working class is one step closer to revolution. It does not hold weight even in the traditional Marxist sense, that is full time workers, thoose in a stable relation to production are living comftably, thoose who are unstable have no means of production to acquire through revolution.

So the critics give us nothing other then "belief".

[Gecko]

fuck the labor aristocracy..I have no faith in them as a class. I think they are for the most part bought off.they are petty,materialistic,greedy and selfish.....all they care about with their white skinned privileges are their material possessions and toys..
...case in point,recently I was having breakfast at a local restaurant,two of the larger nearby tables were taken up by a group of about 15 middle class middle age and older white men and women... the men at one table the women at the other..Listening to their loud discussions needless to say sickened me and ruined my meal..
the men having severe cases of diarrhea at the mouth went on and on boisterously about all their numerous material possessions,yard tractors,their cars,their houses,their toys,vacations etc etc..
The women at the other table droned on and on mainly about upcoming social events,vacations,home and garden bullshit,petty gossip about family members,friends and neighbors...
it was truly disgusting listening to this torrent of sewer shit...
Sitting there I thought to myself that somewhere before I had read that the USA is an incredibly wealthy country materialistically,but with incredible poverty spritually..
this suddenly struck me as being quite true listening to these pathetically empty conversations..
I sincerely believe that any talk about the "revolutionary potential" of the "labor aristocracy" is absolute infantile silliness and a total disconnect from real life in the USA..
..the labor aristocracy..for the most part are at best petty reformers whose limits would be to support minor tweaks to the capitalist system so it can run more efficiently..
IMHO revolutionary potential is to be found in the minorities,immigrants,progressive white intellectuals and working class whites.
most of the white middle class and above including the labor aristocracy are nothing but loyal whores to the capitalist system..racist,war mongering,reactionary and selfish maggots...there's little or no revolutionary potential there..

[BIG BROTHER]

So do any of you people recall May 68 in France or the General strike in England? Although the conditions for a revolution might be greater in the third-world, that doesn't mean the working class in imperialist countries isn't revolutionary.

[9]

fuck the labor aristocracy..I have no faith in them as a class. I think they are for the most part bought off.they are petty,materialistic,greedy and selfish.....all they care about with their white skinned privileges are their material possessions and toys..
...case in point,recently I was having breakfast at a local restaurant,two of the larger nearby tables were taken up by a group of about 15 middle class middle age and older white men and women... the men at one table the women at the other..Listening to their loud discussions needless to say sickened me and ruined my meal..
the men having severe cases of diarrhea at the mouth went on and on boisterously about all their numerous material possessions,yard tractors,their cars,their houses,their toys,vacations etc etc..
The women at the other table droned on and on mainly about upcoming social events,vacations,home and garden bullshit,petty gossip about family members,friends and neighbors...
it was truly disgusting listening to this torrent of sewer shit...
Sitting there I thought to myself that somewhere before I had read that the USA is an incredibly wealthy country materialistically,but with incredible poverty spritually..
this suddenly struck me as being quite true listening to these pathetically empty conversations..
I sincerely believe that any talk about the "revolutionary potential" of the "labor aristocracy" is absolute infantile silliness and a total disconnect from real life in the USA..
..the labor aristocracy..for the most part are at best petty reformers whose limits would be to support minor tweaks to the capitalist system so it can run more efficiently..
IMHO revolutionary potential is to be found in the minorities,immigrants,progressive white intellectuals and working class whites.
most of the white middle class and above including the labor aristocracy are nothing but loyal whores to the capitalist system..racist,war mongering,reactionary and selfish maggots...there's little or no revolutionary potential there..

This comment is pretty disgusting, honestly; you sound like a little kid going through puberty.
Meanwhile, you haven't even defined what you see as the 'labor aristocracy', so for all I know you could be talking about nearly the entire working class in the US.

[Hiero]

So do any of you people recall May 68 in France or the General strike in England? Although the conditions for a revolution might be greater in the third-world, that doesn't mean the working class in imperialist countries isn't revolutionary.

I think this is the major error, confusing every militant or deviant act as an act of revolutionary politics. Not every act that is militant is equal to a revolutionary act. Even if the students of may 68 (which the greatest image from that period is the students rebelling on the streets) held revolutionary ideas the impetus for social revolution was lacking, because the class that can provide that is not revolutionary.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think this is the major error, confusing every militant or deviant act as an act of revolutionary politics. Not every act that is militant is equal to a revolutionary act. Even if the students of may 68 (which the greatest image from that period is the students rebelling on the streets) held revolutionary ideas the impetus for social revolution was lacking, because the class that can provide that is not revolutionary.

10 Million workers went on strike, just not students. And in a lot of the occupied factories workers coordinated with students and farmers to run things for themselves.

Even the capitalist media "The Economist" acknowledges that power has in the hands of the unions and the communist party. The reason why the revolution did not go through was because of the conservative leadership of the unions and the communist party was bureaucratized. It was the leadership that wasn't revolutionary not the workers!

[Hiero]

10 Million workers went on strike, just not students. And in a lot of the occupied factories workers coordinated with students and farmers to run things for themselves.

Even the capitalist media "The Economist" acknowledges that power has in the hands of the unions and the communist party. The reason why the revolution did not go through was because of the conservative leadership of the unions and the communist party was bureaucratized. It was the leadership that wasn't revolutionary not the workers!

So what are the implications then?

There is either something wrong with the Marxism, because materialism does not uphold here. The Communist Party is not the social force, the workers are. . If we are materialist and not idealist if the Communist Party and Unions turn conservative why can't the workers follow through with the revolutionary movement? Even this goes against anarchists theory, if the workers were winning the battle, then how can leadership stop the workering class? How did the unions and Communist hold power over the social force of a revolution?

Or the workers were not as revolutionary as you claim and this is an ideaological reading of working class events that while they are militant they are not revolutionary. 1968 is then just an exageration by the Communists and Anarachists.

What is the general result for revolutionary theory if the 1968 event was infact a event of the revolutionary workers. Materialism and Anarchism go straight out of the door, because in this case the social force (working class) are weak against the idealogical leadership. In your eyes even if the working class are revolutionary it is dependent on the leadership.

[BIG BROTHER]

The Vanguard in a Revolutionary struggle is the conscious actor of the Revolution and is needed to get a revolution through. In this case the vanguard was degenerated and able to deter the worker into a dead end.
Thus the need for a revolutionary vanguard.

May 68 was in a sense a failed revolution but nevertheless a revolution. New leadership failed to rise up, there was a lot of confusion among workers and students.


I think 10 million workes on strike, the creation of organizing committees between workers, farmers and students is much more than just a militant action. The state was paralyzed and at the mercy of the workers.

Like I said, even bourgeoisie media admitted that power has at the hand of the communist and the union.s


So what are the implications then?

There is either something wrong with the Marxism, because materialism does not uphold here. The Communist Party is not the social force, the workers are. . If we are materialist and not idealist if the Communist Party and Unions turn conservative why can't the workers follow through with the revolutionary movement? Even this goes against anarchists theory, if the workers were winning the battle, then how can leadership stop the workering class? How did the unions and Communist hold power over the social force of a revolution?

Or the workers were not as revolutionary as you claim and this is an ideaological reading of working class events that while they are militant they are not revolutionary. 1968 is then just an exageration by the Communists and Anarachists.

What is the general result for revolutionary theory if the 1968 event was infact a event of the revolutionary workers. Materialism and Anarchism go straight out of the door, because in this case the social force (working class) are weak against the idealogical leadership. In your eyes even if the working class are revolutionary it is dependent on the leadership.

[BIG BROTHER]

In fact it was the communist parties line that May 68 wasn't a revolution or revolution to be, that effectively killed off the revolution. They failed to play their role.

[blake 3:17]

There is no social force that is revolutionary then, if the mass casual and non skilled force becomes militant, they have not objective goal (as in revolutionary reppriopriation of the means of production) other then to become this privelege fulltime and skilled working force, which the first world can not offer.

That's essentially the struggle.

[Barry Lyndon]

fuck the labor aristocracy..I have no faith in them as a class. I think they are for the most part bought off.they are petty,materialistic,greedy and selfish.....all they care about with their white skinned privileges are their material possessions and toys..
...case in point,recently I was having breakfast at a local restaurant,two of the larger nearby tables were taken up by a group of about 15 middle class middle age and older white men and women... the men at one table the women at the other..Listening to their loud discussions needless to say sickened me and ruined my meal..
the men having severe cases of diarrhea at the mouth went on and on boisterously about all their numerous material possessions,yard tractors,their cars,their houses,their toys,vacations etc etc..
The women at the other table droned on and on mainly about upcoming social events,vacations,home and garden bullshit,petty gossip about family members,friends and neighbors...
it was truly disgusting listening to this torrent of sewer shit...
Sitting there I thought to myself that somewhere before I had read that the USA is an incredibly wealthy country materialistically,but with incredible poverty spritually..
this suddenly struck me as being quite true listening to these pathetically empty conversations..
I sincerely believe that any talk about the "revolutionary potential" of the "labor aristocracy" is absolute infantile silliness and a total disconnect from real life in the USA..
..the labor aristocracy..for the most part are at best petty reformers whose limits would be to support minor tweaks to the capitalist system so it can run more efficiently..
IMHO revolutionary potential is to be found in the minorities,immigrants,progressive white intellectuals and working class whites.
most of the white middle class and above including the labor aristocracy are nothing but loyal whores to the capitalist system..racist,war mongering,reactionary and selfish maggots...there's little or no revolutionary potential there..

I think you are totally right, I have also had experiences like this many times. Too bad some people, like '9', deem a frank statement of reality like this to be childish. It's probably because its a painful truth they don't want to hear.

[9]

I think you are totally right, I have also had experiences like this many times. Too bad some people, like '9', deem a frank statement of reality like this to be childish. It's probably because its a painful truth they don't want to hear.

No, in fact, it is because it is a completely childish, anecdotal statement and the furthest thing imaginable from Marxist analysis. In fact, I don't necessarily dispute the existence of a labor aristocracy at all, but I certainly don't accept some child whining about some reactionary people he met at a restaurant like an obnoxious little snob to be at all a reliable basis upon which to draw any conclusions.
There are, after all, plenty of workers who are reactionary. I could provide plenty of anecdotes. This, of course, doesn't serve as some sort of proof that the working class as a class is reactionary. Although I sometimes think you Unikiddies probably would just as happily reach that conclusion.

[Barry Lyndon]

No, in fact, it is because it is a completely childish, anecdotal statement and the furthest thing imaginable from Marxist analysis. In fact, I don't necessarily dispute the existence of a labor aristocracy at all, but I certainly don't accept some child whining about some reactionary people he met at a restaurant like an obnoxious little snob to be at all a reliable basis upon which to draw any conclusions.
There are, after all, plenty of workers who are reactionary. I could provide plenty of anecdotes. This, of course, doesn't serve as some sort of proof that the working class as a class is reactionary. Although I sometimes think you Unikiddies probably would just as happily reach that conclusion.

Not every post has to be a clinical, peer-reviewed essay-he's recounting a personal experience. I don't see how its snobby to point out that so many American middle class workers are materialistic, shallow, petty, and totally devoid of class consciousness.

[the last donut of the night]

Not every post has to be a clinical, peer-reviewed essay-he's recounting a personal experience. I don't see how its snobby to point out that so many American middle class workers are materialistic, shallow, petty, and totally devoid of class consciousness.

Sorry dude, but middle class and working class aren't the same thing. So what's a middle class worker?

[vampire squid]

somebody whose wages+benefits+etc exceed the value she produces?

[GreenCommunism]

why do aristocrats think they deserve the advantage and priviledges they have? because they have it, they then justify it as being superior to the people. why do middle class and working class white in america believe it is right to plunder other nations( yes they are not as stupid as you think they are) it's because they already did and still benefit from it, thus they find ways to justify their position.

racism is now frowned upon to justify it, but most of the explanation as to why the first world is rich and the third world is poor pretty much fall into cultural fascism. they have corrupt leaders, like they are doomed to have such and it's not our fault for protecting their ass whenever the people want to overthrow them. our politicians are so transparent gee. countless other examples.

[9]

why do aristocrats think they deserve the advantage and priviledges they have? because they have it, they then justify it as being superior to the people. why do middle class and working class white in america believe it is right to plunder other nations


I once heard this crazy saying, I don't remember who it's by, maybe you could check for me - it went something like "the ruling ideas of every age are the ideas of the ruling class". What a novel idea.

[S.Artesian]

somebody whose wages+benefits+etc exceed the value she produces?


Can you give some examples of that, please. Like our oil rig workers middle class workers? Auto workers? Steel workers? Semiconductor fabrication workers? Railway workers?

[Outinleftfield]

Even members of the "labor aristocracy" would see their lives improve in socialism. The end of all the waste of capitalism and the end of the bourgeoisie (which compared to the labor aristocracy makes an absurd amount of money) would still raise the quality of life of the labor aristocracy just not as much as it would raise the quality of life of poorer proletarians. Also, many proletarians in America who would be in the "labor aristocracy" still find themselves running into problems caused by capitalism such as not being able to affoard healthcare. They also still no matter how hard they'll try to deny it experience the alienation inherent in the capitalist-employee hierarchy. They are still being exploited, just not as badly as most people and the capitalists keep them focused on comparing themselves to most people so they feel like they are "successful" and "winning" and don't notice the problems capitalism is causing.

What we got to do is convince them their quality of life would improve in socialism. Capitalist propaganda has done a good job convincing them that everyone would live in poverty in socialism. We need to dispell that myth.

[AK]

somebody whose wages+benefits+etc exceed the value she produces?
You've got a very strange class analysis.