Labor Aristocracy - How Powerful is it?

[Questionable]

It seems like the labor aristocracy has become something of a scapegoat for many on the Left. Some have even subscribed to a form of defeatism, saying entire countries such as America are full of labor aristocrats who have gotten fat off imperialist super-profits and social services, that they're too entangled in capitalism to be capable of any kind of class conscious actions. I've even seen some people discredit entire movements such as Occupy Wall Street as embittered workers fighting for their share of the imperialist pie.

So I'm wondering - how powerful is the labor aristocracy in countries such as the USA really? Are advanced capitalist workers really spoiled by capitalism, or has the Left failed to mobilize them in an effective way?

Because when you look at statistics, it seems like things are getting steadily worse. Capital and wealth are more and more centralized, social services are getting cut everywhere, wages are falling while prices are rising, jobs are disappearing. In the midst of all this, is it really fair to say that the workers are still being bribed by capitalism? Yes, there is still a top layer of the proletariat who are still reaping the benefits of the system, such as CEOs and other top managers, but the situation is only going downhill for the vast majority. In my daily dealings I encounter many blue-collar workers who know that something is wrong, they'll complain openly about corrupt politicians and businesses taking over the government. Even if they lack the knowledge to know that capitalism has and will always be this way, you can see the stirrings of discontent even now.

So I guess what I'm asking is...where is the blame to be cast? Are we to blame workers in advanced capitalist nations for being spoiled by capitalism-imperialism? Is the system still strong enough that attempting to mobilize them would be a waste of them? Or are the objective conditions right but the subjective conditions wrong? Is the Left in such a disorganized state that we only have ourselves to blame for not taking advantage of the discontent among workers?

[Blake's Baby]

'Labour aristocracy' theory is junk. There's no 'labour aristocracy'.

However, as a mystification and means of weakening the socialist movement, it's pretty powerful.

[Questionable]

'Labour aristocracy' theory is junk. There's no 'labour aristocracy'.

Could you elaborate further on that? What is incorrect about it? I'm not trying to mount a defense, I really am curious as to what everyone thinks.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin was wrong. Simple as. How do you prove that something is wrong? 'Look! There isn't a labour aristocracy!'

The idea is mistaken. The workers in the west aren't 'bought off' by pillaging the colonies; higher wages in the west depend on capitalism deriving greater profits from them. Western workers are more explited than workers in some other places (look at Japan, and then try to explain where Japan's 'colonies' are in order for there to be 'labour aristocracy' there).

Not in terms of brutality of course, workers in the west are relatively well-treated compared to others. But that doesn't make them (us) an 'aristocracy'.

[ind_com]

So I guess what I'm asking is...where is the blame to be cast? Are we to blame workers in advanced capitalist nations for being spoiled by capitalism-imperialism? Is the system still strong enough that attempting to mobilize them would be a waste of them? Or are the objective conditions right but the subjective conditions wrong? Is the Left in such a disorganized state that we only have ourselves to blame for not taking advantage of the discontent among workers?

Subjective conditions are wrong. In the last century there has been no serious attempt by any communist group to prepare the working classes of imperialist countries for protracted military struggle against the capitalist state.

[Questionable]

Lenin was wrong. Simple as. How do you prove that something is wrong? 'Look! There isn't a labour aristocracy!'

Well, yeah, if you're going to say something is wrong, I except you to explain why it is erroneous and what your own views of the situation are. I figured that was understood.


The idea is mistaken. The workers in the west aren't 'bought off' by pillaging the colonies; higher wages in the west depend on capitalism deriving greater profits from them.

And here's what I was asking for. Thank you.

So is it still untrue to say that workers who occupy more comfortable positions in capitalism won't take on a false bourgeois consciousness?

[ind_com]

The idea is mistaken. The workers in the west aren't 'bought off' by pillaging the colonies; higher wages in the west depend on capitalism deriving greater profits from them.

How is a call-center worker from the USA itself causing more profits than a call-center worker in India doing the same job for the same company? The lower wages in the third world are a result of capitalism deriving greater profits from them.

[Conscript]

Subjective conditions are wrong. In the last century there has been no serious attempt by any communist group to prepare the working classes of imperialist countries for protracted military struggle against the capitalist state.

It's out of the question really. When do irregular armies beat imperialist conventional armies? So far, in the very best conditions where the impoverished people fully support national liberation and so do a few powerful 'anti-imperialist' states. Yet after all that, the country is still bombed to hell.

I think any workers revolution in the imperialist states have to target their ability to maintain and equip and army. After all, we are the laborers and we are the ones who create this military that oppresses us.

[ind_com]

It's out of the question really. When do irregular armies beat imperialist conventional armies?

It's called a protracted people's war. The war itself witnesses the creation of conventional revolutionary armies.

[deer_skull]

'Labour aristocracy' theory is junk. There's no 'labour aristocracy'.

This is BS. There very well is a labor aristocracy and it exists at the centers of global capitalism: North America, Europe, Japan, a newly emerging middle class in China, and in the upper echelons of wage labor in so called "developing nations."

It is not, however, as a result simply of higher wages, as some Third Worldists like to claim, but as a result of the scheme of commodity production on a global scale. In order for a commodity to become profitable for a capitalist, it has to be purchased -- consumed. Considering that a nation such as the US is well known to be a "net importer" of goods, one has to ask where these goods come from and who was involved in the manufacture of these goods. The answer to this question would be the low-paid, highly exploited laborers working in the factories that don't exist within a nation such as the US (the shirt I'm wearing says "Made In Bangladesh").

To imply that the laborers that produce these goods yet don't see their use is quite disingenuous at best. Furthermore, to imply that the ability of those laborers living at the centers of capitalism to consume those goods doesn't foster a consciousness that stands to defend capitalism is also, at best, disingenuous. This is the labor aristocracy and the bribing of certain sectors of the working class that Lenin spoke of.

[l'Enfermé]

Blake's Baby: That's not what Lenin meant by labour aristocracy, that's maoist thirdworldism-esque bullshit. Lenin refered only to a "infinitesimal minority" of the working class in the Great Powers as the "labour aristocracy", the "bourgeoisified stratum" of workers who are the "labour lieutenants" of the capitalist class in the worker's movement and form the main base of support for the Second International after 1914.

Lenin didn't invent this notion of the labour aristocracy, anyway. It originates in Engels' letters to Marx I think, but it was popularized by Karl Kautsky.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think the idea of the 'labour aristocracy' has anything to do with workers in the west being bribed by capitalism.

The former certainly exists, but certainly not in that third-worldist 'look at those US workers with their iPods and smartphones' sort of way, but look to Britain and some very well paid public servants. They are indeed an infinitesimally small percentage of the working class, though.

The real question we want to ask, which is relevant to our ideas on Capitalism, is for how long can capitalism - driven global and imperialist by its need for profit to sustain its very existence - satisfy the living standards of the working class anywhere (including the western world) above a level at which 'enough is enough'?

Here, you see cracks starting to appear in the 'west'. Clearly, many workers in Britain, in Germany and so on are still relatively well bought off by Capitalism. Despite our own partisan political protestations, the truth is that there are a great many of us workers in the west who - despite being technically exploited, despite having some jobs which are fucking shite and despite being in huge amounts of debt - have living standards that are not all that bad, in absolute terms (sometimes I think it is pointless to talk of living standards in relative terms, because different countries at any one point in time are at different stages of their material development, and so it is quite easy to find those who are worse off than you, this doesn't really say anything about the absolute state of your own living standards). You then look at some of those in the US, in Greece, in Spain and you can see that in fact, some parts of the working class have very clearly fallen below the acceptable standard of living. This is evidenced by the breaking down of civil society in Greece - this only tends to happen, historically, as a question of 'butter' - when there isn't even the ability for workers to get by at the most basic levels of subsistence, society breaks down and genuine breaks with mainstream political/ideological thought occur.

We see this in Greece mainly, and this certainly has the potential to spread: Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy could easily have been/could still be in the same position as Greece in the not too distant future. So the second question is this: is this the start of the termination of Capitalism, the start of its final decline and the point at which it permanently loses its ability to provide an acceptable standard of living for the workers, or is it a crisis of capitalism that will be solved by the system's undeniable ingenuity?

Personally, i'm not sure. I think we still see evidence of capitalism's ability - even if its not revolutionary - to solve its own inherent contradictions. Yes, ever increasing imperialism - in the form of war after war after war leading to occupations - is certainly a symptom of a sick system, but there are still inventions being made, absolute profits are still being made in some sectors, and we cannot also exclude the possibility that our 'rate of profit' analysis of capitalism (where we surmise that a movement in the rate of profit towards zero signals the death of capitalism) is ever so slightly reductionist. I think there is some element of poor policy making within the capitalist framework to blame for the current crisis. Not the credit element; capitalism has been surviving on credit for a long time. But the policy prescriptions in reaction to the crisis have been undeniably weak and un-original, and arguably have augmented the debt problem.

My conclusion: there are probably still some policy solutions to the current crisis within capitalism, but that doesn't mean that the weaknesses of capitalism are become graver and clearer to us.

[citizen of industry]

There are conservative union beauracratic executives a plenty, who make a good living tying the labor movement to politicians and yellow unions. But nothing is stopping workers from forming there own militant unions if they want to.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Consumer Society definitely has increased the phenomena of "What? Capitalism works, look at my new this and that!" and smashing workers' solidarity.

[Blake's Baby]

That's just false consciousness, not a labour aristocracy though.

[Vanguard1917]

Blake's Baby: That's not what Lenin meant by labour aristocracy, that's maoist thirdworldism-esque bullshit. Lenin refered only to a "infinitesimal minority" of the working class in the Great Powers as the "labour aristocracy", the "bourgeoisified stratum" of workers who are the "labour lieutenants" of the capitalist class in the worker's movement and form the main base of support for the Second International after 1914.

Yes - Lenin was talking about the trade-union bureaucracy, not the working class as a whole.

'the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

The 'labour aristocracy' theory sought to emphasise the central role played by these 'bribed' leaders of the working class in the prevalence of reformist ideology within the workers' movement in imperialist countries - i.e. as one of the decisive means through which bourgeois ideology maintains its hold over millions of workers.

[blake 3:17]

There are conservative union beauracratic executives a plenty, who make a good living tying the labor movement to politicians and yellow unions. But nothing is stopping workers from forming there own militant unions if they want to.

I'm sorry that's just not true. You're denying the material, political, legal, and institutional advantages that conservative unions have, not just in opposition to "red" unions, but also against the employer.

The history of dual unionism/red unionism is complicated but well worth considering when one looks at recent organizing drives. The North American union movement needs to reinvent itself entirely in order to further its goals.

[Hit The North]

How is a call-center worker from the USA itself causing more profits than a call-center worker in India doing the same job for the same company? The lower wages in the third world are a result of capitalism deriving greater profits from them.

How does this benefit the call-center worker in the USA if her job is shipped out to India due to cheaper costs to the capitalist?


This is BS. There very well is a labor aristocracy and it exists at the centers of global capitalism: North America, Europe, Japan, a newly emerging middle class in China, and in the upper echelons of wage labor in so called "developing nations."


It must have escaped your notice that average workers wages in the USA have fallen since the 1970s. Some labour aristocracy! The fact is that consumption in the developed world has been based on access to cheap credit and not on the basis of some wondrous largesse on behalf of our capitalist masters.

[#FF0000]

To imply that the laborers that produce these goods yet don't see their use is quite disingenuous at best. Furthermore, to imply that the ability of those laborers living at the centers of capitalism to consume those goods doesn't foster a consciousness that stands to defend capitalism is also, at best, disingenuous. This is the labor aristocracy and the bribing of certain sectors of the working class that Lenin spoke of.

I gotta wonder how this whole "fair trade" gimmick caught on with so many 'middle class' folks, then.

[vinaair]

thanks infomation

[LiberationTheologist]

I'm not sure where the term Labor Aristocracy originated from but I can take a guess because the facts are these - the upper echelon of labor representatives and the salaries of the AFL- CIO, SEIU etcetera are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You think those people don't have different class interests to keep that job going? Of course many unionized workers have the same situation on a smaller scale they earn a decent wage with some decent although not great benefits and life is tolerable for them. You think you are going to risk your job for other people when you are living ok? No, not likely. You are working toward that 30 (used to be 25) year retirement with a pension. But now things are changing, pensions are nearly non existent unless you are a public sector union, but you still need to eat so what will you do rebel against the union manager? Not likely.

[Bakunin Knight]

The fact of the matter is that - at least in the West - the unions have themselves become capitalist interests, entwined with the state in order to maintain a monopoly over who is allowed to work, and grow fat from the dues that they demand in return for simply allowing people to attempt to earn a living. There is enormous corruption there and collusion with corporate and statist interests: in that way the unions of today have long been captured. It's a sorry state of affairs that an institution that might have been crucial in resisting the rise of the centralized state has become allied with it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The fact of the matter is that - at least in the West - the unions have themselves become capitalist interests, entwined with the state in order to maintain a monopoly over who is allowed to work, and grow fat from the dues that they demand in return for simply allowing people to attempt to earn a living. There is enormous corruption there and collusion with corporate and statist interests: in that way the unions of today have long been captured. It's a sorry state of affairs that an institution that might have been crucial in resisting the rise of the centralized state has become allied with it.But when have unions not been part of the system? In essence it's a defensive organization for working class interests WITHIN capitalism. It's like saying it's a shame that levees are so closely associated with floods.

So without capitalism unions have no use, but if unions are completely useless to workers, then any genuine union also looses any use (other than for the ruling class, but this is more like situations of corporate or state organized unions). Because of this contradictory position inside the system - figurativly riding the fence between the workers and bosses - it's possible for there to be struggle within the union for increased democracy, increased agressiveness and even militancy.

But we've lived through a time of demoralization and retreat for regular workers. In the absense of pressure from below, the section of the union machinery who are not workers, but both need the capitalists as well as the workers in order to maintain their position as labor negotiators, have been able to squeeze off shop-floor organizing and union democracy and so on.

But I don't think this means they are in the bosses camp in quite the solid way you make it sound. For sure they persue negotiation over struggle and have had a long-standing cooperation strategy. But if struggle picks up they will have to begin to at least adress the left and talk-militant in order to stay relevant. Some will probably actually go left and abandon business-unionism for struggle-unionism as has happened in past labor upsurges.

This is just to say that I don't think we should view unions as capitalist institutions although they are institutions resulting from capitalism. When possible, instead, we should try and create a rank and file counter-weight to the labor aristocracy/beurocrats.

[Bakunin Knight]

That's all true. I was only giving a description about the current state of unions, rather than their necessary state. Their alliance with statist interests has turned union officials into rent-seekers who seek to increase their own power and profit rather than focusing on the well-being of the workers whom they claim to represent. This is, of course, a general statement, and there are exceptions. The problem is that those within unions who seek to fight against this trend are marginalized by ruthless power seekers. We should of course attempt to reverse this trend.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think it is a 'general statement with exceptions'. I think it's an inescapable trajectory of union organisations. If you sit down with the bosses with the intention of negotiating the exploitation of labour power, you're part of the machinery of capitalism. Doesn't matter what your conscience tells you. It has nothing to do with 'power seekers'. It has to do with 'systems of power'. Put 'good' people into that situation, and they will act the same, they'll be turned into agents of capital, or they'll quit and let another more willing agent do it.

The Trotskyist 'crisis of leadership' theory is such sick joke, and apparently it's even affecting Anarchists now. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'? It's not about 'the personnel', it's about 'the system'.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'?
While I agree with the gist of what you're saying, I must contest that 'power corrupts' is a terrible slogan and blanket term - it could be used for anything concerning power/class struggle, so I must ask: What power do you refer to?
The power of the working class' mass movement, or the power of an autark spawned out of moralism?

[Bakunin Knight]

The Trotskyist 'crisis of leadership' theory is such sick joke, and apparently it's even affecting Anarchists now. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'? It's not about 'the personnel', it's about 'the system'.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. What I meant is that not everyone within unions are corrupted, since most do not have any measure of power. The question depends on what you mean by corruption, however. If you mean by seeking ends through the corporativist-capitalist system, then yes, they can indeed be considered corrupt. But I was talking about the individual corruption of those that gain power within the unions.

I certainly maintained from the beginning that unions have been corrupted by the system. Is there really anything that I said that is contradictory with anarchism?

[Blake's Baby]

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying, I must contest that 'power corrupts' is a terrible slogan and blanket term - it could be used for anything concerning power/class struggle, so I must ask: What power do you refer to?
The power of the working class' mass movement, or the power of an autark spawned out of moralism?

Yoseph, as you are an IWAer who is also a sympathiser of the CPGB-PCC (a remarkable feat of cognitive disonance for which you should probably be isolated and studied) I'm not sure I'd have any common language to discuss this with you. The question was posed to Bakunin Knight, in a fairly conventional Anarchist idiom. I'll try to get at the gist in my reply to BK.


I'm sorry if I was unclear. What I meant is that not everyone within unions are corrupted, since most do not have any measure of power. The question depends on what you mean by corruption, however. If you mean by seeking ends through the corporativist-capitalist system, then yes, they can indeed be considered corrupt. But I was talking about the individual corruption of those that gain power within the unions.

I certainly maintained from the beginning that unions have been corrupted by the system. Is there really anything that I said that is contradictory with anarchism?

I thanked your post earlier (before Jimmie got to you) because you were expressing the idea that the unions are irretrevably part of capitalism - a position I agree with.

You then seemed to be expressing the idea that all that needs to happen is a change of personel in the unions, a position I disagree with.

In this case, I'd have more sympathy with the position 'power corrupts' (and therefore no matter who one puts into positions of power in the union, they will not act ultimately in the interests of the working class) than 'we need to get our guy in' (the Trotskyist position that failure is a consequence of a 'crisis of leadership').

'Power corrupts' at least expresses a recognition of a systemic situation - incorporation into capitalism is a result of environmental factors, because the unions are part of the capitalist apparatus; conversely, 'a crisis of leadership' poses the question as being one of psychology, will or motivation of the participants, and sees the unions as workers' organs that can be 'captured' by putting 'our man in power'. Which they can't. It's inevitable that unions that exist to bargain with capitalists, to negotiate the conditions of capitalist exploitation of workers, will fulfill a conservative role.

Of course, I'm not referring to the IWW or other revolutionary unions, I'm talking about business unions. And equally, I'm not saying that everyone in unions is reactionary - obviously they're not. But unions are organisations for the negotiation of the conditions of exploitation, they can't be reformed, no matter how many 'good' people are in them.

[Bakunin Knight]

Thanks for the response.



You then seemed to be expressing the idea that all that needs to happen is a change of personel in the unions, a position I disagree with.
Well I wasn't talking about a change of leadership leading to better results. When I mentioned reversing the trend, I was responding to Jimmie's comment about building a 'rank and file', which I took to mean those within unions who do not hold power (the 'exceptions' that I was referring to). More specifically, I was referring to the marginalization of workers within unions by the union leaders, i.e. that the latter do not act in the interest of the former. You can see that in the original post.


In this case, I'd have more sympathy with the position 'power corrupts' (and therefore no matter who one puts into positions of power in the union, they will not act ultimately in the interests of the working class) than 'we need to get our guy in' (the Trotskyist position that failure is a consequence of a 'crisis of leadership').
No disagreements there!