First world workers and labor aristocracy.

[Zanters]

I'm not sure what to make of labor aristocracy. In the USA, many of the goods produced and factors of production are in third world countries. This seems to let them to lead a better life, as we don't "see" the shitty jobs back at home. While the workers are still very much so oppressed, it is not nearly as bad as the workers over seas. The workers back in the states are more comfortable with their oppression, feeling no need to be revolutionary. Plus, they have a lot more to lose, or at least feel like it. Like a home, car, food, luxuries, etc.

What is that? Is that labor aristocracy? Is it just liberalized working conditions, leading to less conscious workers?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The labour aristocracy, according to Lenin, is a small stratum on top of the proletariat, bought off by imperialist superprofits. To proclaim an entire national section of the proletariat to be a labour aristocracy would be a serious misreading of what Lenin meant by the term.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The labour aristocracy, according to Lenin, is a small stratum on top of the proletariat, bought off by imperialist superprofits. To proclaim an entire national section of the proletariat to be a labour aristocracy would be a serious misreading of what Lenin meant by the term.


[. . .] Marx and Engels traced this connection between opportunism in the working-class movement and the imperialist features of British capitalism systematically, during the course of several decades. For example, on October 7, 1858, Engels wrote to Marx: “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.”[15] Almost a quarter of a century later, in a letter dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks of the “worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the middle class”. In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.” [13] (Engels expressed similar ideas in the press in his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, which appeared in 1892.)
This clearly shows the causes and effects. The causes are: (1) exploitation of the whole world by this country; (2) its monopolist position in the world market; (3) its colonial monopoly. The effects are: (1) a section of the British proletariat becomes bourgeois; (2) a section of the proletariat allows itself to be led by men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.

This stratum of workers led by "men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie" may be small, but let's be real. The working class in the imperial centre which "has become completely merged with bourgeois policy in the form of 'social-chauvinism'" (Lenin again) is nothing to scoff at! It undoubtedly includes all of of the major unions, all of the bourgeoisified "social democratic" and "labour" parties, and so on. To be sure, it's a "small stratum" in global terms, but in the "left" at the imperial centre it's definitive! Certainly, racist flag-waving pro-business workers who own houses, cars, have pensions, head nuclear families, etc. aren't an aberration, and through their organizations (labour councils, social democratic think-tanks, etc.) they hold the purse strings and set the agenda for "workers' movement".

[GiantMonkeyMan]

This stratum of workers led by "men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie" may be small, but let's be real. The working class in the imperial centre which "has become completely merged with bourgeois policy in the form of 'social-chauvinism'" (Lenin again) is nothing to scoff at! It undoubtedly includes all of of the major unions, all of the bourgeoisified "social democratic" and "labour" parties, and so on. To be sure, it's a "small stratum" in global terms, but in the "left" at the imperial centre it's definitive! Certainly, racist flag-waving pro-business workers who own houses, cars, have pensions, head nuclear families, etc. aren't an aberration, and through their organizations (labour councils, social democratic think-tanks, etc.) they hold the purse strings and set the agenda for "workers' movement".
While, yes, the trade unions and 'labour' parties of contemporary society are lead by people who essentially have bought into the capitalist system and, at best, only seek to mitigate the harshest of issues brought on by capitalism, can you truly say that everyone involved in unions or the 'labour' parties are of the same mind? Many people in the Labour Party in the UK still hark back to the 'socialism' of the NHS etc. What I'm asking is: are the reformist socialists amongst the working class, who might also belong to what have essentially become neoliberal parties, part of the labour aristocracy?

[Tim Cornelis]

870s mistake is that because Lenin made a specific remark about his time that therefore what Lenin said is true in general. It's possible that that 'small stratum' has grown to encompass the entire working class of imperialist centre countries. I do not believe this to be true as there are labour aristocracies the world over. Where did the Costa Ricans or Panamese get their imperialist superprofits from?

[Zanters]

So, would the moving of shitty jobs, trade unions, liberal reforms, and what not all be considered tactics used to (unkowling or not) make the proletariat less class conscious?

Also, why are skilled laborers more desired, without some kind of aristocratic cause behind it? Not denying that some work is more valued than others, but doesn't the fact that one nuclear scientist have more value than a nonskilled worker point to labor aristocracy? Or am I getting this all wrong.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Many people in the Labour Party in the UK still hark back to the 'socialism' of the NHS etc.

i.e. A "socialism", totally compatible with capitalism, of some ownership by the bourgeois state which provides services to "citizens" within a framework that privileges patriarchy and white supremacy.

Uh, yup, pretty sure that's the social chauvinism in question.

Or, in other words, yes, the professional reformists in the working class parties are absolutely part of the labour aristocracy (and arguably their misleadership is one of the most serious barriers to development of communist consciousness).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Some people here seem to be confused the ideological social-democracy of some first-world, politically conscious workers, with the desperate material situation of most first-world but not politically/class conscious workers.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm curious how much evidence there is that the relative wealth of first world workers derives from exploiting third world workers.

For instance, both the us and the EU are each others largest trading partners. Economies like America and japan run heavily on internal consumption, the biggest expenses being housing and services, neither of which are readily outsourced yet. Almost all food production in America, Australia and Europe is domestic, with importers like the UK and japan relying on other wealthy countries for a majority of their food security.

True consumer goods are almost all produced in the global south, but it seems to me like a given global north worker probably produces mostly for other global north residents, and of their income the lions share goes back into the economy of the rich countries either as rent, taxation, services, paying down debts, or retirement.

That's why I'm curious what fraction of the "prosperity" of workers in rich countries is attributable to exploitation in the third world. In fact, when manufacturing was based in the global north, workers in first world countries seemed to in a perverse sense be self-sufficient engaging just with other countries of comparable wealth.