Labor Aristocracy

[Yuppie Grinder]

What is it?

[Questionable]

Imperialist nations collect super-profits (Profits taken by force) from weaker nations. With these super-profits, they can do things to increase the standard of living for their own workforce, such as raising wages or adding socialized programs. These leads to the illusion that capitalism can be reformed, or isn't so bad at all. Workers who buy into these bribes and become pro-capitalist are called the "labor aristocracy," because even though they're still exploited proletarians, they have the benefit of whatever bread crumbs the bourgeoisie decides to pass down to them.

[Lucretia]

Charlie Post has an excellent critique of various labour aristocracy theories in Historical Materialism vol. 18 issue 4. You can see a truncated version of this at the Against the Current if you google it.

[TrotskistMarx]

True, that's why I am realist about the whole working class of many countries, and of even poor countries. Because in both rich and poor countries the high-wage, high level possition workers like for example the workers of poor countries of international wealthy corporations like Sheraton, Hilton hotels, American Airlines, Verizon, ATT, and the high wage workers of rich nations of those corporations and of many many others like Bank of America, the food supervisors of Mcdonalds, the sub-managers of Pizza Hut, the oppressor workers of many others are all anti-socialism. Because they really don't need socialism. Socialism, a radical change toward socialism is only needed by people who are really not having a good life on this earth. I think we gotta be straight about that, and right now millions of people are still having a great time on this earth (even with loans, credit cards and all of that of the free market but at least they can afford gym memberships, going out to movies, going out to night clubs. They can afford playstation 3 games which can give even adult a great time. They can afford at home HBO, Cinemax, The Movie Channel. And other more important things like private health insurance.

I really need socialism, because I am not doing well, and I am not living a normal pleasurable full life in this world, that's why i am socialist. But however we have to be realists. Millions and millions of folks are doing very good. I think capitalism can still put bread and entertainment on the family households of millions and millions of people of this whole world

We will need to patient for poverty levels to rise. For the anti-socialism middle class to turn into lower poor desperate classes. So that we might see what Lenin called "An objective revolutionary situation"

.



Imperialist nations collect super-profits (Profits taken by force) from weaker nations. With these super-profits, they can do things to increase the standard of living for their own workforce, such as raising wages or adding socialized programs. These leads to the illusion that capitalism can be reformed, or isn't so bad at all. Workers who buy into these bribes and become pro-capitalist are called the "labor aristocracy," because even though they're still exploited proletarians, they have the benefit of whatever bread crumbs the bourgeoisie decides to pass down to them.

[ArrowLance]

The Labour Aristocracy is somewhat of a sub-class of the proletariat. People who belong to the Labour Aristocracy are privileged beyond what the working class has been privileged to before, privileges such as cheap food and diversions, large homes, and shorter work hours. Further they, for whatever reason, give up their class interests and often find themselves actively working with the bourgeoisie in the bourgeoisie's interest.

This is what the western meaning of 'Middle Class' very closely approximates to. It is therefore important not to find ourselves, as Communists, using the same arguments and rhetoric as those that defend the middle class and bemoan its demise.

[Lynx]

Labour aristocracy sounds like a term a Maoist would use.
a) Being more concerned about your own welfare or that of your family does not make you an aristocrat.
b) Not wanting to risk the status quo for the danger and uncertainly of a revolution is a common position to take.
c) Most people are not ideologically driven and it takes desperate circumstances to make them accept the need for radical change.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Labour aristocracy sounds like a term a Maoist would use.
a) Being more concerned about your own welfare or that of your family does not make you an aristocrat.
b) Not wanting to risk the status quo for the danger and uncertainly of a revolution is a common position to take.
c) Most people are not ideologically driven and it takes desperate circumstances to make them accept the need for radical change.

Actually, comrade, it originated with Engels with his distinction between skilled and unskilled workers, and the pay gap between them. His distinction was closer to the "aristoi" concept than distortions made later on by Lenin and Mao.

[Lynx]

Actually, comrade, it originated with Engels with his distinction between skilled and unskilled workers, and the pay gap between them. His distinction was closer to the "aristoi" concept than distortions made later on by Lenin and Mao.
Roughly equivalent to the trades and professions ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Yes.

[Lynx]

Some of them may enjoy greater autonomy, and not feel exploited. A portion of these are also self-employed. Numerically, they represent a minority of workers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The self-employed ones are outside the proletariat, though. Contemporarily, the labour aristocracy is near the edges re. the petit-bourgeoisie, the coordinator class, and the unproductive self-employed, but isn't in either of those classes.

[Raskolnikov]

The Labour Aristocracy is somewhat of a sub-class of the proletariat.

No.

Let's take for Example America - There is a fine difference between a Labour Aristocrat and a 'White Proletariat'. I use the terminology "White Proletariat" due to the class differences between a proletariat of "white" (thus technically apart of Labour aristocracy and not having their necks breathed down via police 24/7 or getting the usual racial institution down on them, but still having to deal with an oppression of the Capitalist society) backround and there is the Proletariat of the Oppressed Minorities.

My family was pushed from a Labour Aristocratic standing in America to one of White Proletariat status when my father lost his job. Mother always have the traditional-Irish immigrant/residential alien job in America.

Another difference is Labour Aristocratic is on par with petite-bourgeois. but Labour Aristocratic is not a sub-class, rather an entirely different machination of a class all on its own merits!

[Deliverous]

A labour aristocracy is whereby a section of the ‘working class’ have been bought off by the profits as a result of sectors of the Capitalist system. It is in my opinion quite economically reductionist. People are not entirely shaped by financial incentive, and never will be.

[ArrowLance]

No.

Let's take for Example America - There is a fine difference between a Labour Aristocrat and a 'White Proletariat'. I use the terminology "White Proletariat" due to the class differences between a proletariat of "white" (thus technically apart of Labour aristocracy and not having their necks breathed down via police 24/7 or getting the usual racial institution down on them, but still having to deal with an oppression of the Capitalist society) backround and there is the Proletariat of the Oppressed Minorities.

My family was pushed from a Labour Aristocratic standing in America to one of White Proletariat status when my father lost his job. Mother always have the traditional-Irish immigrant/residential alien job in America.

Another difference is Labour Aristocratic is on par with petite-bourgeois. but Labour Aristocratic is not a sub-class, rather an entirely different machination of a class all on its own merits!

No it isn't. That is a terrible Marxist analysis. The Labour Aristocracy still has the same connection to the means of production as the proletariat, and therefore is still in the same class. The same is true of the lumpen-proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

No it isn't. That is a terrible Marxist analysis. The Labour Aristocracy still has the same connection to the means of production as the proletariat, and therefore is still in the same class. The same is true of the lumpen-proletariat.

But the lumpen has no relation to the means of production.

[ArrowLance]

But the lumpen has no relation to the means of production.

That is inaccurate. They have no useful relation to the means of production, they do share the same relation as the proletariat however. Everyone has a relation to the means of production, in this case they share the same relation as the proletariat in that they must lend themselves to exploitation in order to function in society.

For the same reasons the unemployed are still members of the proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

That is inaccurate. They have no useful relation to the means of production, they do share the same relation as the proletariat however. Everyone has a relation to the means of production, in this case they share the same relation as the proletariat in that they must lend themselves to exploitation in order to function in society.

For the same reasons the unemployed are still members of the proletariat.

The lumpen are not simply the "unemployed" they are what our society usually calls beggars, criminals, etc....therefor since they do not sell their labor, they do not have the same relation to the means of production; ie: they have no relation to the means of production.

[ArrowLance]

The lumpen are not simply the "unemployed" they are what our society usually calls beggars, criminals, etc....therefor since they do not sell their labor, they do not have the same relation to the means of production; ie: they have no relation to the means of production. It isn't possible to have no relations with the means of production. I never called them the unemployed. They are made to sell themselves to earn a wage in order to reproduce themselves in society, this makes them part of the proletariat. The fact that they chose not to, or are even forced not to, through extra-legal means and charity doesn't alter their relations with capital.