Trotsky on the Labor Aristocracy.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I recently read Trotsky's essay "Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay." I thought it was very interesting. To quote from it:



Monopoly capitalism is less and less willing to reconcile itself to the independence of trade unions. It demands of the reformist bureaucracy and the labor aristocracy who pick the crumbs from its banquet table, that they become transformed into its political police before the eyes of the working class. If that is not achieved, the labor bureaucracy is driven away and replaced by the fascists. Incidentally, all the efforts of the labor aristocracy in the service of imperialism cannot in the long run save them from destruction.

The intensification of class contradictions within each country, the intensification of antagonisms between one country and another, produce a situation in which imperialist capitalism can tolerate (i.e., up to a certain time) a reformist bureaucracy only if the latter serves directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena. Social-reformism must become transformed into social-imperialism in order to prolong its existence, but only prolong it, and nothing more. Because along this road there is no way out in general.

It is interesting to me, because even though I have been a fan of the Old Man for same time, I have never once heard another Trotsky enthusiast talk about the Labor Aristocracy. It's as if all Trotskyist groups only focus on their own understandings of what the USSR was, when it went bad, and whether or not other countries that claim to be socialist are bad. They never talk about the need to fight the Labor Aristocracy in their own country.

Why is that?

Also, can anyone help me track down everything Trotsky ever wrote on the Labor Aristocracy.

Thanks in advance, comrades!

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Also looking for anarchist sources from the likes Eugene Debs, the IWW, etc, on the Labor Aristocracy.

[Aurora]

Trotskyists do talk about the bureaucratisation of the union leaderships and criticise them quite often, the problem is inconsistency i think, some Trotskyist groups tend to orientate towards union bureaucrats if they move in a left direction, Bob Crow of the RMT for example, working along side him there's a pressure not to mention his income of over £120k.

You may be right about a blindness to aristocrats. There are no doubt privileged sections of the union workforce public sector workers earning 100k a year and such, i've mostly seen them as a tiny minority and in times of crisis they shrink, although they are better protected than others..

Honestly i don't know enough about what role they play, i'll read that essay you mentioned when i get a chance.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

In another pamphlet, while Trotsky was still in good graces in the USSR, titled "Perspectives on World Development," Trotsky says this about the American Labor Aristocracy:

"For what does America need? She needs to secure her profits at the expense of the European toiling masses, and thus render stable the privileged position of the upper crust of the American working-class. Without the American labor aristocracy, American capitalism cannot maintain itself. Failing Gompers and his trade unions, failing the skilled well-paid workers, the political regime of American capitalism will plunge into the abyss. But it is possible to keep the American labor aristocracy in its privileged position only by placing the “plebians,” the proletarian “rabble” of Europe on rations of cold and hunger, rations rigidly fixed and stingily weighed. The further this development unfolds along this road, all the more difficult will it be for the European Social Democracy to uphold the evangel of Americanism in the eyes of the European working masses. All the more centralized will become the resistance of European labor against the master of masters, against American capitalism."

Trotsky is saying that without the Labor Aristocracy propping up capitalism in America, capitalism would vanish into an Abyss.

All the Trotskyist groups I have been around never once talk about this aspect of Trotsky and Lenin's thought. I think it is self-evident though. Why aren't more revolutionaries in America trying to figure out how to destroy the Labor Aristocracy, and thus plunge capitalism right into the Abyss?

Still looking for those anarchist sources as well, if anyone knows of them!

[Blake's Baby]

Also looking for anarchist sources from the likes Eugene Debs, the IWW, etc, on the Labor Aristocracy.

Just a quick clarification - Eugene Debs wasn't an anarchist; and the IWW isn't an anarchist organisation either.

[subcp]

How far do you think the concept of 'aristocracy of labor' goes? Sometimes it is applied to the pie-cards of trade unions, all of the "bureaucrats", paid staffers, etc., but it has also been applied to entire sections of the working-class (MIM Notes published a few articles claiming there is no such thing as a 'white worker'- since all white people live in the central capitalist nations, they are thus all the 'labor aristocracy'). The basis for it is the Hobson/Lenin theory of Imperialism- that the 'super-profits' imperialist states take from peripheral nations/colonies is distributed to their own proletariat, thus buying their allegiance. Is that what you are proposing?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Found another quote from Trotsky on the Labor Aristocracy, Comrades! I put it in my signature. It is from his 1926 pamphlet "Europe and America."



"Such, in its main features, is the material power of the United States. It is this power that permits the American capitalists to follow the old practice of the British bourgeoisie: fatten the labor aristocracy in order to keep the proletariat shackled. They have entered into this practice to such a degree of perfection as the British bourgeoisie would never even have dared to consider."

Here Trotsky is saying that the American capitalists have perfected the bribing of the Labor Aristocracy, to such an extent that not even the British can dream of!

This is the same country which Engels described as a bourgeois nation. To quote Engels:



“...The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.”

This also matches up with Lenin's comments on the extent of the Labor Aristocracy problem in America.



It goes without saying that, out of this tidy sum, at least five hundred millions can be spent as a sop to the labour leaders and the labour aristocracy, i.e., on all sorts of bribes. The whole thing boils down to nothing but bribery. It is done in a thousand different ways: by increasing cultural facilities in the largest centres, by creating educational institutions, and by providing co-operative, trade union and parliamentary leaders with thousands of cushy jobs. This is done wherever present-day civilised capitalist relations exist. It is these thousands of millions in super-profits that form the economic basis of opportunism in the working-class movement. In America, Britain and France we see a far greater persistence of the opportunist leaders, of the upper crust of the working class, the labour aristocracy; they offer stronger resistance to the Communist movement. That is why we must be prepared to find it harder for the European and American workers’ parties to get rid of this disease than was the case in our country. We know that enormous successes have been achieved in the treatment of this disease since the Third International was formed, but we have not yet finished the job; the purg- ing of the workers’ parties, the revolutionary parties of the proletariat all over the world, of bourgeois influences, of the opportunists in their ranks, is very far from complete.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

How far do you think the concept of 'aristocracy of labor' goes?

I am not sure. Lenin, Trotsky and Engels were writing at a very different time. I would guess the situation is much worse today though. What about you, Comrade?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is interesting to me, because even though I have been a fan of the Old Man for same time, I have never once heard another Trotsky enthusiast talk about the Labor Aristocracy.

Many Orthodox trots do talk about this but they frame it as a "crisis of leadership" in working class defensive organizations (unions specifically).

But I don't know if this is needed, but just to clarify, when Lenin and Trotsky spoke of "labor aristocracy" my understanding is that they did not mean "well paid workers" as the term is sometimes currently used. They meant the people in society whose position depends on fighting for workers, but only within the system. This means that their position depends both on the desire of workers to fight back on the one hand, but also the continued exploitation of workers on the other. Specifically I think they meant the 2nd International socialists and trade-union bureaucrats. A well-paid worker still has objective interests in revolution because even if (and I doubt this would even be the case) they ended up not having quite the lifestyle they had before the revolution, I think more control over your life as a worker would still mean that they would support revolution - even if their extra income prior to a revolutionary crisis means they are less likely to be the first to join a revolutionary movement (though well paid workers often do, if only because some recognize that it was strong worker's organization that turned their manufacturing job into something where people could live a decent life on the wages). A union beurocrat or Socialist-party "negotiator" for the class, looses their class position if there is a revolution - worker's don't need a mediator when they put themselves in the driver's seat - the mediators become redundant and so historically this is why many will be scared of revolt from below.

In regards to the US, for a long time there was stridency and militancy among workers but the unions themselves (in early-Debs time) were mostly just organizations for mutual aid, raising retirement and health insurance for workers from workers dues. They were also white supremacists often and elitist in orientation to immigrants and low-wage industrial workers. The socialist party in the US also reflected this and while there were people like Debs and others who would try and form a radical alternative union through the IWW, there were also right-wingers who had elitist views.

The differences between Europe and the US probably has to do with the way things developed historically. The US Civil War did bring both mass industrialization and soon the first big workers struggles, but uprooting the Southern Slave-ocracy is a bit different than the Bourgeois revolutions in Germany or France, for example, where workers played a much more direct and sometimes slightly independent role. Many of the first Marxists and Anarchists in the US were people who'd been radicalized in Europe and then immigrated to the US. This isn't to say that there was no indigenous appeal to these ideas, just that they developed at a different pace and through different channels in the US.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Many Orthodox trots do talk about this but they frame it as a "crisis of leadership" in working class defensive organizations (unions specifically).

But why not use the old language, and call them the Labor Aristocracy? What is the point of developing new language to refer to the same old problem?


But I don't know if this is needed, but just to clarify, when Lenin and Trotsky spoke of "labor aristocracy" my understanding is that they did not mean "well paid workers" as the term is sometimes currently used.

Lenin and Trotsky seem to mean workers who are bribed with imperialist super-profits.


They meant the people in society whose position depends on fighting for workers, but only within the system. This means that their position depends both on the desire of workers to fight back on the one hand, but also the continued exploitation of workers on the other.

I don't understand what you mean. Are unions "within the system" according to you? What does that even mean? How is any of this compatible with the above mentioned quotes?


A well-paid worker still has objective interests in revolution because even if (and I doubt this would even be the case) they ended up not having quite the lifestyle they had before the revolution, I think more control over your life as a worker would still mean that they would support revolution - even if their extra income prior to a revolutionary crisis means they are less likely to be the first to join a revolutionary movement

Yeah, it would seem natural that the most exploited are the ones most receptive to revolution. Hence the more you bribe a certain section of the working class (specifically the ones who are in the best position to mislead the lower workers), the lower the level of conflict you see. Whether or not revolution would "objectively" be in their interests is debatable, because the Labor Aristocracy is being bribed precisely to mislead the other workers.


They were also white supremacists often and elitist in orientation to immigrants and low-wage industrial workers.

Yeah, the history of Gomperism is pretty disgusting. Gompers was a vile racist, and only cared about white workers. The AFL-CIO leadership today is still extremely racist. White racism seems to be a huge part of the Labor Aristocracy in America today.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Speaking of the situation in Russia during the Civil War, which Trotsky played a huge part in, Trotsky has this to say about the Russian version of the Labor Aristocracy. To quote Trotsky from his Terrorism and Communism:



But Kautsky goes further to develop his theme. He complains that we suppress the newspapers of the SRs and the Mensheviks, and even – such things have been known – arrest their leaders. Are we not dealing here with “shades of opinion” in the proletarian or the Socialist movement? The scholastic pedant does not see facts beyond his accustomed words. The Mensheviks and SRs for him are simply tendencies in Socialism, whereas, in the course of the revolution, they have been transformed into an organization which works in active co-operation with the counter-revolution and carries on against us an open war. The army of Kolchak was organized by Socialist Revolutionaries (how that name savours to-day of the charlatan!), and was supported by Mensheviks. Both carried on – and carry on – against us, for a year and a half, a war on the Northern front. The Mensheviks who rule the Caucasus, formerly the allies of Hohenzollern, and to-day the allies of Lloyd George, arrested and shot Bolsheviks hand in hand with German and British officers. The Mensheviks and S.R.s of the Kuban Rada organized the army of Denikin. The Esthonian Mensheviks who participate in their government were directly concerned in the last advance of Yudenich against Petrograd. Such are these “tendencies” in the Socialist movement. Kautsky considers that one can be in a state of open and civil war with the Mensheviks and SRs, who, with the help of the troops they themselves have organized for Yudenich, Kolchak and Denikin, are fighting for their “shade of opinions” in Socialism, and at the same time to allow those innocent “shades of opinion” freedom of the Press in our rear. If the dispute with the SRs and the Mensheviks could be settled by means of persuasion and voting – that is, if there were not behind their backs the Russian and foreign imperialists – there would be no civil war.

It would seem to me, that in the event of a socialist revolution in America or Europe, there would be a trend of people, calling themselves socialists, who would act in a similar manner. These people would be part of the current Labor Aristocracy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lenin and Trotsky seem to mean workers who are bribed with imperialist super-profits.There's nothing in the quotes and nothing in what I've read from either of them that supports that. No and even in the quotes you provided they are clearly speaking of Democratic-socialist "opportunists" and trade union bureaucrats, not well-paid workers. The negotiators for the class make a life for themselves because workers need to be defended from capital - therefore they will have a tendency to have a split-reaction to revolution which reflects the way they straddle both classes within capitalism.

Well paid workers, on the other hand, are just that: well paid workers. Subjectively they may think that they can go untouched from the pressures of wage work, but objectively their class position is of a worker and so in a revolution more workers power also means more power for them.


I don't understand what you mean. Are unions "within the system" according to you? What does that even mean? How is any of this compatible with the above mentioned quotes?A union is an organization for the defense of workers against the bosses... no bosses, no unions needed. The union leaders tend to see their position as that of negotiator for the workers, the parliamentary reformist socialist is the same. That layer is what is meant by "labor bureaucracy".


Yeah, it would seem natural that the most exploited are the ones most receptive to revolution. Hence the more you bribe a certain section of the working class (specifically the ones who are in the best position to mislead the lower workers), the lower the level of conflict you see. Whether or not revolution would "objectively" be in their interests is debatable, because the Labor Aristocracy is being bribed precisely to mislead the other workers. High paid workers can be "more exploited" than some low-wage workers because how exploited someone is is a ratio of how much value they create and how much they get in return. But at any rate, the most suffering or the hardest working are not necessarily the ones who will fight back, that is inconsistent with the history of class struggle. Being the most repressed or oppressed can also make people fear loosing what little they have at all, or people are just beat-down and demoralized. Organization and consciousness are far more important IMO that just outright suffering.

What you are describing is not "labor aristocracy" which is a group who are part of the class struggle but have conflicting interests, when you speak of high-paid workers who may feel there is a disincentive to struggle or who politically side with the ruling class, then it's what's usually called "mixed consciousness".

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

There's nothing in the quotes and nothing in what I've read from either of them that supports that.

That is kind of a bizarre thing to say. I'll quote Trotsky on it later in this post, but here is what Lenin says:

In Lenin's Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, Lenin describes it exactly that way. He also criticizes Trotsky at the same time (this is before Trotsky became a Bolshevik).



Hobson, the social-liberal, fails to see that this “counteraction” can be offered only by the revolutionary proletariat and only in the form of a social revolution. But then he is a social-liberal! Nevertheless, as early as 1902 he had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a “United States of Europe” (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyite!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskyites of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and that objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement.


No and even in the quotes you provided they are clearly speaking of Democratic-socialist "opportunists" and trade union bureaucrats, not well-paid workers.

Trotsky seems to be more clear on the distinction. The language he uses differentiates between the Labor Bureaucracy and the Labor Aristocracy, but not so clearly. The way Trotsky uses the term, it would seem the Labor Bureaucracy is a subset of the Labor Aristocracy, namely, the leadership of the opportunist unions. The Labor Aristocracy would then also be the workers being led by the Labor Bureaucracy, and any other highly paid workers being bribed with imperialist super-profits.

To quote Trotsky again:



Monopoly capitalism is less and less willing to reconcile itself to the independence of trade unions. It demands of the reformist bureaucracy and the labor aristocracy who pick the crumbs from its banquet table, that they become transformed into its political police before the eyes of the working class. If that is not achieved, the labor bureaucracy is driven away and replaced by the fascists. Incidentally, all the efforts of the labor aristocracy in the service of imperialism cannot in the long run save them from destruction.

Here Monopoly Capitalism demands from both the reformist Labor Bureaucracy and the Labor Aristocracy.

To quote Trotsky again:



This position is in complete harmony with the social position of the labor aristocracy and the labor bureaucracy, who fight for a crumb in the share of superprofits of imperialist capitalism. The labor bureaucrats do their level best in words and deeds to demonstrate to the “democratic” state how reliable and indispensable they are in peace-time and especially in time of war. By transforming the trade unions into organs of the state, fascism invents nothing new; it merely draws to their ultimate conclusion the tendencies inherent in imperialism.

Here again, the Labor Aristocracy is something slightly different and broader than the Labor Bureaucracy. Yet it is the Labor Bureaucracy who acts as the chief servants of imperialism, and they act precisely toward getting a share of imperialist super-profit.

To quote Trotsky again:



Inasmuch as imperialist capitalism creates both in colonies and semi-colonies a stratum of labor aristocracy and bureaucracy, the latter requires the support of colonial and semicolonial governments, as protectors, patrons and, sometimes, as arbitrators. This constitutes the most important social basis for the Bonapartist and semi-Bonapartist character of governments in the colonies and in backward countries generally. This likewise constitutes the basis for the dependence of reformist unions upon the state.

Here again, the Labor Aristocracy is something different from the Labor Bureaucracy. The Labor Aristocracy is the social-base of imperialism in the colonies and semi-colonies. The Labor Bureaucracy are the specific misleaders of the working class who are bribed into their role via imperialist super-profits.

To quote Trotsky yet again:



Within the totalitarian and semi-totalitarian unions it is impossible or well-nigh impossible to carry on any except conspiratorial work. It is necessary to adapt ourselves to the concrete conditions existing in the trade unions of every given country in order to mobilize the masses not only against the bourgeoisie but also against the totalitarian regime within the trade unions themselves and against the leaders enforcing this regime. The primary slogan for this struggle is: complete and unconditional independence of the trade unions in relation to the capitalist state. This means a struggle to turn the trade unions into the organs of the broad exploited masses and not the organs of a labor aristocracy.

Here again Trotsky continues with the distinction between the Labor Bureaucracy as the leadership of Totalitarian unions, and the broader Labor Aristocracy. The Totalitarian unions are the organs of the Labor Aristocracy, though the Labor Aristocracy is not necessarily the leadership of the unions.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Here are some more quotes, this time from the Second Congress of the Fourth International, which Trotsky created. This resolution was called The Struggles of the Colonial Peoples and the World Revolution:



The ground for Stalinist treachery is class-collaboration deriving from ties with the Kremlin. Conversely, the ground for Social Democratic treachery and reaction with regard to the colonies is, in its turn, likewise class-collaboration, but one which derives from material ties between the labor aristocracy and the bourgeoisie engendered by the imperialist super-exploitation of the colonies. This factor demarcates the Social Democracy from Stalinism in relation to the colonies and invests the Social Democratic colonial policy with a greater consistency, continuity and stability. A typical example is that of the French Social Democracy which has, since the liberation, furnished French imperialism with the bulk of its leading cadres (Ministers of the Colonies up to 1947, Governors, Generals, etc.). They are the ones who directed the most bloody repression against the colonial masses (Texier, Chataigneau, Naegelen in Algeria, de Coppet in Madagascar, Maes in Tunisia).

The classic case is that of the British Labour Party. It was the progeny of the labor aristocracy fattened by a share of the superprofits which a rising British imperialism drained from the colonies. It attained its peak strength at a moment when the British Empire is shaken and weakened to its foundations. Radicalized, in the last analysis, by the profound dislocation and retreat of British imperialism in the Far East, the British working class heaved into the scats of power to solve their problems, the very party which is historically the child of imperialist superprofits, which has had inexorably to strive to reestablish the domination of imperialism over its weakened colonies; and which is therefore utterly incapable of liberating British labor from the boons of colonial exploitation—a liberation which is the necessary, premise for emancipating the British proletariat from wage-slavery.

To the colonial masses the Labour Party has demonstrated that it is the continuator of British imperial policy. To the metropolitan workers the Labour Party will more and more demonstrate the all important fact, namely, that the revolt of the British proletariat, and indeed of the privileged proletariat throughout Western Europe, against colonial slavery, that their rejection of any benefits from or share in the colonies, is a basic condition for their own class emancipation.

Even here, in the early period of the Fourth International, Trotskyists of the world recognized the need to fight against the Labor Aristocracy and the Labor Bureaucracy. The proletariat of all of Western Europe is particularly singled out for recognition as being the principle part of the Labor Aristocracy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally Posted by Lenin
Hobson, the social-liberal, fails to see that this “counteraction” can be offered only by the revolutionary proletariat and only in the form of a social revolution. But then he is a social-liberal! Nevertheless, as early as 1902 he had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a “United States of Europe” (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyite!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskyites of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and that objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement. The strata of the working class are the "opportunists" i.e. the social democrats and unionists who want to defend the system. You are misinterpreting this to mean some objective "strata" of well paid workers or something and that is not what they are talking about; they mean the Labor Party, the Social Democratic Parties, the "Opportunists" i.e. reformist groupings that are connected to class struggle. These are "incapable" of moving the class movement to liberation, they are "Social Chauvanists" who want "socialism for white workers" in the US or Socialism and Zionism in Israel or Socialism and Empire in pre-war England. They are talking about parties and forces in and on the class.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

The strata of the working class are the "opportunists" i.e. the social democrats and unionists who want to defend the system. You are misinterpreting this to mean some objective "strata" of well paid workers or something and that is not what they are talking about; they mean the Labor Party, the Social Democratic Parties, the "Opportunists" i.e. reformist groupings that are connected to class struggle. These are "incapable" of moving the class movement to liberation, they are "Social Chauvanists" who want "socialism for white workers" in the US or Socialism and Zionism in Israel or Socialism and Empire in pre-war England. They are talking about parties and forces in and on the class.

Your interpretation of the text is peculiar, and seems false right on the face of it.

Lenin clearly talks about the Labor Aristocracy (and as we shall see, clearly identifies them with the social-chauvinist and opportunist leaders), yet your statements here seem to indicate you think it is a different thing entirely. As we have already seen, Trotsky explicitly differentiates the two, but Lenin seems to use the term Labor Aristocracy in the inclusive sense (it is both the Labor Bureaucracy and the Labor Aristocracy, the Labor Bureaucracy merely being the leadership of the the Labor Aristocracy, and the Labor Aristocracy being the social-base of the Labor Bureaucracy and imperialism in the colonies and semi-colonies).

If the social-chauvinist and opportunist leadership aren't the Labor Aristocracy, then what do you propose they are exactly, Jimmy? Are they something outside the Labor Aristocracy, according to you?

Lenin clearly identifies the opportunist leaders with the Labor Aristocracy. To quote Lenin again:



It goes without saying that, out of this tidy sum, at least five hundred millions can be spent as a sop to the labour leaders and the labour aristocracy, i.e., on all sorts of bribes. The whole thing boils down to nothing but bribery. It is done in a thousand different ways: by increasing cultural facilities in the largest centres, by creating educational institutions, and by providing co-operative, trade union and parliamentary leaders with thousands of cushy jobs. This is done wherever present-day civilised capitalist relations exist. It is these thousands of millions in super-profits that form the economic basis of opportunism in the working-class movement. In America, Britain and France we see a far greater persistence of the opportunist leaders, of the upper crust of the working class, the labour aristocracy; they offer stronger resistance to the Communist movement. That is why we must be prepared to find it harder for the European and American workers’ parties to get rid of this disease than was the case in our country. We know that enormous successes have been achieved in the treatment of this disease since the Third International was formed, but we have not yet finished the job; the purging of the workers’ parties, the revolutionary parties of the proletariat all over the world, of bourgeois influences, of the opportunists in their ranks, is very far from complete.

It seems self-evident on reading Lenin that he considers the social-chauvinist and opportunist leaders of the labor movement to be part of the Labor Aristocracy, which Lenin calls a disease. They are actually synonymous with it.

Or are you saying you just disagree with Lenin?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lenin clearly talks about the Labor Aristocracy (and as we shall see, clearly identifies them with the social-chauvinist and opportunist leaders), yet your statements here seem to indicate you think it is a different thing entirely.No I am arguing that he was speaking of the "Labor Aristocracy" as being both Labor Beurocrats and Social Democrats: they are the ones who have been bribed through "all these officies" - they have made a place for themselves in capitalism as representatives of working class struggle and guardians of the past reforms won. Because of this, they ultimately sided with their own bourgoise in WWI to defend the reforms that their home countries had granted and then would act to preserve capitalism when revolutions began after WWI.

What I am disagreeing with is your argument that by "Labor Aristocracy" they meant simply "well-paid workers" rather than "Opportunist" leaders and party-members. I am not convinced either from things I've read by these historical figures or the quotes you have provided that they mean some kind of OBJECTIVE strata of better-paid workers, rather than the Reformists and those workers who have been won to those paries and those views (which is subjective).

If Lenin or Trotsky had believed that this was some objective clash of class interests within the class, then after the Russian Revolution neither of them would have argued for communists to agitate among workers in those social-democratic and union organizations since it would be a lost cause to try and win over people who actually have a set interest in maintaining their own (lesser) exploitation.

Does that mean that subjectivly many workers are won to supporting refomism or even jingoism? No. Knowing that in capitalists Powers some workers will side with the Bourgoise and see their position as connected to ruling class dominance over the Irish or Latin America or Africa is nothing new. What was new was that the leading sections of the international worker's movement all sided with their rulers when push came to shove - this is what they were trying to explain as far as I understand.


If the social-chauvinist and opportunist leadership aren't the Labor Aristocracy, then what do you propose they are exactly, Jimmy? Are they something outside the Labor Aristocracy, according to you?No that is what I am arguing, that they were talking about "Opportunists" who had made a place for themselves in Capitalism through fighting the class struggle - not general reforms, but political influence, offices, organizations and so on.


Or are you saying you just disagree with Lenin?If they are saying that there are a chunk of workers who benifit objectivly from imperialism, then I do disagree. Vastly increased US dominance in the world over the last generation, for example, has not brought more security, wages, or reforms for the US working population.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

What I am disagreeing with is your argument that by "Labor Aristocracy" they meant simply "well-paid workers" rather than "Opportunist" leaders and party-members.I'm not aware of having made such an argument. Perhaps you would like to quote where I have stated that the Labor Aristocracy is "simply" "well-paid workers." To me, this appears to be your own rephrasing of what I have actually stated in this thread.


I am not convinced either from things I've read by these historical figures or the quotes you have provided that they mean some kind of OBJECTIVE strata of better-paid workers, rather than the Reformists and those workers who have been won to those paries and those views (which is subjective).Well, with all the quotes I have provided you, it seems that your own refusal to interpret the plain meaning of the statements probably accounts for your own belief that I have stated the Labor Aristocracy is "simply" "well-paid workers" in the first place.

I'm not sure what providing more quotations from Lenin, Trotsky, and Engels would do at this point. Perhaps you could actually elucidate, based on your understanding of the texts, why you think Lenin, Trotsky, and Engels mean something different than what is, to me, perfectly obvious on a plain reading of their statements.


If Lenin or Trotsky had believed that this was some objective clash of class interests within the class, then after the Russian Revolution neither of them would have argued for communists to agitate among workers in those social-democratic and union organizations since it would be a lost cause to try and win over people who actually have a set interest in maintaining their own (lesser) exploitation.How does that follow at all? Why would you assume such a thing about what Lenin or Trotsky would have advocated if they believed something you claim they didn't believe?

How does believing that a strata of workers in the imperialist countries are bribed with imperialist superprofits contradict the notion of trying to agitate for revolution in the imperialist countries amongst workers?

Lenin seems clear on what must be done, regardless of how many workers are under the sway of the social-chauvinists and opportunists. To quote Lenin:



Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics

Here Lenin says it is the duty of communists to go down lower, and deeper, to the real masses. These are the workers who are not bribed with imperialist superprofits. They are the majority of workers.

Since we can't calculate what portion of the workers will/do follow the Labor Bureaucrats, and thus become part of the Labor Aristocracy, all we can do is agitate, and go down lower, and deeper, to the real masses. Surely there are real masses in America who communists should go to. Nowhere does Lenin suggest there aren't real masses in the imperialist countries.


If they are saying that there are a chunk of workers who benifit objectivly from imperialism, then I do disagreeSo, rather than openly disagree with the clear words of Lenin and Trotsky, you just prefer to believe they are saying something else?

[subcp]

I'm not sure what providing more quotations from Lenin, Trotsky, and Engels would do at this point. Perhaps you could actually elucidate, based on your understanding of the texts, why you think Lenin, Trotsky, and Engels mean something different that what is, to me, perfectly obvious on a plain reading of their statements.

They could simply be wrong. I agree with Engels that the Chartist movement (a forerunner of the future of trade unionism post-WWI) seeks a pact with the bourgeoisie and the state, and seeks to mystify workers. This became generalized after WWI (when the union sacree's were signed between Social Democracy and individual advanced capitalist-imperialist nation states, and the trade unions rallied workers for the war effort and collaborated with the state for war production needs). The unions became integrated into the state as a general trend.

But just because certain ideas come from Marxist theories or revolutionaries of the past doesn't mean they are 'the good news'/'the Word' that we must follow to the best of our abilities.

Taking the theories further into the realm of 'well-paid workers' or like MIM Notes and say all white skinned people are social-imperialists and the labor aristocracy is absurd. Basing a class analysis on income and/or consumer habits and/or relative or average standard of living is Weberian bourgeois-sociology nonsense, and completely alien to Marxism. It's also pretty indefensible by its proponents- having such a theory then 'supporting' materially or in solidarity with struggles of the highest paid strata of the unionized working-class in the West (ex. the professional air-traffic controllers/PATCO in 1980, the longshoremen and ILWU in 2003/2011-today).

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

They could simply be wrong.

They could be, but I highly, highly doubt it.

[Hit The North]

They could simply be wrong. They could be, but I highly, highly doubt it.

Tony Cliff thought so and wrote an interesting critique of Lenin's notion of a labour aristocracy that has been bribed by imperialist super-profits Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm)

He notes that it is a very poor explanation for the reformism of the European and American working class and that it is a thesis that cannot be empirically demonstrated.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Tony Cliff thought so and wrote an interesting critique of Lenin's notion of a labour aristocracy that has been bribed by imperialist super-profits Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm)

He notes that it is a very poor explanation for the reformism of the European and American working class and that it is a thesis that cannot be empirically demonstrated.

I'm aware of Tony Cliff's criticisms of the idea. I plan on writing a refutation of it eventually, but to adequately do that would involve demonstrating the Cliffite tendency's own service to the Labor Bureaucracy, starting with their completely hypocritical stance on the Korean War. It is known that the American Cliffites receive large sums of money from various shady NGOs, but I know less about the British SWP in that regard.

[subcp]

I agree that most of Trotskyism thinks there's a crisis in the leadership of the unions (which can be rectified by Trotskyists becoming union leadership); Tony Cliff had a habit of superficially taking up communist positions (opposing the theory of the labor aristocracy, putting forward a theory of state capitalism and noting the importance of the total war economies), but has the worst analysis to back them up and thus make those positions look like something they are not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm aware of Tony Cliff's criticisms of the idea. I plan on writing a refutation of it eventually, but to adequately do that would involve demonstrating the Cliffite tendency's own service to the Labor Bureaucracy, starting with their completely hypocritical stance on the Korean War. It is known that the American Cliffites receive large sums of money from various shady NGOs, but I know less about the British SWP in that regard.

FOX NEWS: "It is well known that Obama's Socialist agenda..."

"It's Known"? By who? "Various Shady NGOs"? What does that mean?

There isn't really an IST group active in the US and if you mean the ISO, then I'm warning you now, don't throw shady accusations around like that unless you are prepared to show some proof because otherwise you're just trolling. It's the leftist equivalent of homophobic school kids saying "I hear so-and-so is gay... I hear he wears women's underware". In other words easy to throw around slander, no proof needed and if the person denies it they look guilty and if they argue against it then they also look guilty. So don't sling shit about the ISO or any other groups here unless you are damn sure it's real and you can back it up.

And you do know the logic of your argument that a section of well-paid workers are the "Labor Aristocracy" whose interests are inherently anti-revolution, then your name: "Labor Aristocrat Killer" basically means "High paid-worker killer" which is pretty divisive on class terms and anti-revolutionary itself. So do you think that there is objectivly a strata of workers whose objective interests are actually alligned with capital?

[Hit The North]

I'm aware of Tony Cliff's criticisms of the idea. I plan on writing a refutation of it eventually, but to adequately do that would involve demonstrating the Cliffite tendency's own service to the Labor Bureaucracy, starting with their completely hypocritical stance on the Korean War. It is known that the American Cliffites receive large sums of money from various shady NGOs, but I know less about the British SWP in that regard.

I look forward to the day when you write an actual refutation of Cliff's ideas rather than resorting to half-baked slanders.

But before that day comes, given your absolute conviction that the theory of a labour aristocracy, bribed by imperialist super-profits, is true, perhaps you'd like to be explicit and name names. Which sections of the working class, that is, which occupations comprise the labour aristocracy? This naming of names would push the debate forward because, as far as I know, neither Lenin nor Trotsky specifically identify which groups of workers they are targeting or the mechanism by which super-profits are distributed.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

There isn't really an IST group active in the US and if you mean the ISO, then I'm warning you now, don't throw shady accusations around like that unless you are prepared to show some proof because otherwise you're just trolling.It isn't a shady accusation. Anyone can view the 990 documents of the ISO, and see for themselves that this organization has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from various NGOs, such as the Wallace Global Fund (over $500,000 since 2005). It's a matter of public record:

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

The Wallace Global Fund was setup by the progressive turned extremely anti-communist multi-millionaire Republican Henry Wallace. Much like George Soros, such organizations of Necromancer-capitalists don't give money to people calling themselves communists for no reason.


And you do know the logic of your argument that a section of well-paid workers are the "Labor Aristocracy" whose interests are inherently anti-revolution, then your name: "Labor Aristocrat Killer" basically means "High paid-worker killer" which is pretty divisive on class terms and anti-revolutionary itself.I never said anything about "well-paid workers." This is consistently your phrase. It is your reformulation of my words. Everything I have said is what Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and the post-Trotsky Fourth International Congresses have said about the Labor Aristocracy. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should petition the ISO to stop calling themselves Leninists and Trotskyists.


So do you think that there is objectivly a strata of workers whose objective interests are actually alligned with capitalOf course. This is a basic teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and the founding Congresses of both the Third and Fourth Internationals. Why would I reject such a basic concept?

Why do you reject their clear words, is perhaps, a better question. Though I think I can venture a guess.

[Jimmie Higgins]

:rolleyes:Jesus Christ. "Anyone can just go onto a website I have linked here and research and see for themselves...". Did you learn politics by working on electoral smear campaigns or something? If anyone can do it, then go on stop vague slanders and try and demonstrate that a left group gets donations and show how they are "shady" and how they end up directing the politics and actions of the political group. Show how 9/11 was an inside job while you're at it.

[subcp]

This is a basic teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and the founding Congresses of both the Third and Fourth Internationals.

There is a big difference between what Engels describes (the integration of a worker's organization into the state; or the collaboration of a worker's organization with the interests of capital) and what Lenin and Trotsky later put forward.

You will not find mention of super-profits or even the theory of Imperialism in Marx & Engels.