Labour 'Aristocracy'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to know that the latest issue of Historical Materialism contains a sustained criticism of the theory of the 'Labour Aristocracy':

Charles Post, 'Exploring Working-Class Consciousness: A Critique Of The Theory Of The Labour Aristocracy (http://brill.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/hm/2010/00000018/00000004/art00001)', Historical Materialism 18, 4, pp.3-38.


Abstract:

The notion of the labour-aristocracy is one of the oldest Marxian explanations of working-class conservatism and reformism. Despite its continued appeal to scholars and activists on the Left, there is no single, coherent theory of the labour-aristocracy. While all versions argue working-class conservatism and reformism reflects the politics of a privileged layer of workers who share in 'monopoly' super-profits, they differ on the sources of those super-profits: national dominance of the world-market in the nineteenth century (Marx and Engels), imperialist investments in the 'colonial world'/global South (Lenin and Zinoviev), or corporate monopoly in the twentieth century (Elbaum and Seltzer). The existence of a privileged layer of workers who share monopoly super-profits with the capitalist class cannot be empirically verified. This essay presents evidence that British capital's dominance of key-branches of global capitalist production in the Victorian period, imperialist investment and corporate market-power can not explain wage-differentials among workers globally or nationally, and that relatively well-paid workers have and continue to play a leading rôle in radical and revolutionary working-class organisations and struggles. An alternative explanation of working-class radicalism, reformism, and conservatism will be the subject of a subsequent essay.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All I know is that there is the possibility that "precariat" is a knee-jerk theoretical response to this earlier "labour aristocracy" stuff, real or imagined.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eh?:confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-things-precariat-t148669/index.html

I'm not a theoretical "wise guy" (read: smart ass), so contributions there would be appreciated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I fail to see what that has got to do with this thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both social strata are based on income, within the liberal paradigm of "class."

[bricolage]

Both social strata are based on income, within the liberal paradigm of "class."
precarity is more to do with security - or lack of it - than it is to do with income though.
still though I don't think it has much do with labour aristocracy, except that they are both applicable to the 'first world'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But income is a crucial part of the broader approach to "security" as defined by the sociologists behind "precariat."

[bricolage]

But income is a crucial part of the broader approach to "security" as defined by the sociologists behind "precariat."
income is relevant not so much because it is low (what would be new about that?) but because it is unstable as it is tied to irregular and unpredictable work patterns, one hours work here, a few others there. it's about the casual nature of the work itself (and the ease at which it can be terminated) more so than the amount paid in return for it.

[Revolutionair]

Interesting. I will give it a read, mostly because I actually use the term 'labor aristocracy'.