Labor Aristocracy

[AlwaysAnarchy]

As I understand it, Labor Aristocracy basically means the first world workers, like in America, have become so well paid that they basically have become content with their situation and thus reject revolutionary change. They are called the Labor Aristocracy.


My question is, is the theory of Labor Aristocracy something is widely held among leftists or is it very controversial? Also, how do we revolutionaries plan on winning American, European, first world workers to our cause if we identify them as labor aristocrats??

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Quick follow up question: What about well paid workers?? By that I mean I hear about some construction workers in certain big cities getting paid more than 100K a year...does this mean they are still working class or has their income made them part of the middle or upper class??

[The Grey Blur]

So long as you're selling your labour power you're a worker and potentially revolutionary, no matter what relative comforts you might have. Arguing that first-world workers are a labour-aristocracy is neo-Maoist nonsense and something that true Socialists utterly reject.

Yes, at the moment there is a lull in an explicitly revolutionary conscious amongst the working-class of America, but this has ocurred historically ( post-WW2 & the Cold War) and it doesn't mean we should take up a defeatist, anti-worker position. In fact, some members might disagree with me and I would be glad to see some examples of Socialist action in America (I know there are a few examples I can't think of right now).

The anti-CPE demonstrations in France, the GAMA strikes in Ireland and the continual anti-War demonstrations throughout the first world demostrate that a revolutionary consciousness is potentially there amongst workers and young people, it simply requires a poke with a Socialist stick.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:40 pm
I hear about some construction workers in certain big cities getting paid more than 100K a year
:wacko:

Sources?

[Aurora]

Quick follow up question: What about well paid workers?? By that I mean I hear about some construction workers in certain big cities getting paid more than 100K a year...does this mean they are still working class or has their income made them part of the middle or upper class??
Your class has nothing to do with the amount of money you earn,if you sell your labour power your a proletarian,if you own a small business and still work your petty-bourgeois,if you own a business and employ wage-labour your bourgeois.

[BreadBros]

As I understand it, Labor Aristocracy basically means the first world workers, like in America, have become so well paid that they basically have become content with their situation and thus reject revolutionary change. They are called the Labor Aristocracy.

Well, the theory can be applied to all first world workers or just a segment of them. It doesn't necessarily have to do with high wages solely per se. The concept as described by Lenin and Kautsky holds that some proletarians profit off of imperialist superprofits. In other words, the capitalist class in the first world is able to exploit other countries (usually "third-world" ones) and that the profits they extract from these countries are in some way passed down to some segments of the proletariat. According to the Maoist International Movement, this entails the entire working class as the higher wages and standard of living in the US and Europe for the proletariat are a product of imperialist profit. It could also just be applied to workers who work in some segment of industry that profits off of direct imperialist action. As the theory goes, its against these workers interest to overthrow capitalist or at the very least to oppose imperialist actions.


My question is, is the theory of Labor Aristocracy something is widely held among leftists or is it very controversial? Also, how do we revolutionaries plan on winning American, European, first world workers to our cause if we identify them as labor aristocrats??

In theory Lenin and Trotsky accepted the theory. However nearly all first-world Leninists and Trotskyists as well as most leftists reject the theory for the fact that it encumbers their ability to apply revolutionary theory to the working classes around them. So, its not widely held and is extremely controversial. The only major group in the US that expouses it as a central part of their theory is the Maoist International Movement, although a few others do as well, for example the Love and Rage Anarchist group (which im fairly sure is defunct now) adopted it. J. Sakai wrote an interesting book on the theory: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/settlers.html about the history of radical unions (such as the IWW) and mainstream unions (CIO) in the US and how they contributed to oppression of immigrant groups and anti-imperialist struggle.


Quick follow up question: What about well paid workers?? By that I mean I hear about some construction workers in certain big cities getting paid more than 100K a year...does this mean they are still working class or has their income made them part of the middle or upper class??

Your question is a bit baseless. According to Marxist theory, the class you belong to has nothing to do with income, it has to do with your relation to the means of production. The middle class is a vague term, and it has no real place in Marxist theory. If you are selling your labor then you are still a member of the proletariat despite your income. I suppose some of those high paid skilled workers might be petty-bourgeois if they happen to run their own business and hire other workers to work for them as well as working themselves. So they are still working class.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:40 pm
I hear about some construction workers in certain big cities getting paid more than 100K a year
:wacko:

Sources?

Its wrong. Unionized carpenters in the US get ~ $20/hour usually. More or less depending on time within union. You'd have to work insane hours and days to get near $100,000 a year. Non-unionized workers make even less. I suppose if you run a small construction business it might be possible to make $100,000 though, depending on the area you work in.

[PRC-UTE]

There has been a labour aristocracy, but it's rapidly disappearing. It's not all first world workers at, but a few layers of the working class.

[BreadBros]

Yes it is disappearing. As more and more countries manage to break away from imperialism, they stop being exploited in the whole and instead integrate into international capitalism. So as less imperialist profits come into a country, newer and more competitive labor markets also open up. Its probably one of the biggest political shifts going on right now, just look at all the anger over jobs being outsourced to China, India, etc. It also reflects the worsening economic situation of most workers in the US.

[Hiero]

So long as you're selling your labour power you're a worker and potentially revolutionary, no matter what relative comforts you might have.

Only the exploited and oppressed are revolutionary. If you sell your labour below it's value then you are exploited. If through imperialist profits you are paid your full labour value or above, then you are not exploited. In that case you have no interest in overthrowing capitalism.


There has been a labour aristocracy, but it's rapidly disappearing


Yes it is disappearing.

What proof do you have it is disappearing?


As more and more countries manage to break away from imperialism, they stop being exploited in the whole and instead integrate into international capitalism.

Intergrate into international capitalism? The world is clearly divided into explioting nations (imperialists like US, UK) and a expliotated nations. Investments into India, China etc increases every year. This is imperialism or rather neo-colonialism. Many countries did break away from old imperialism. Now the are in the new imperialism. The comprador bourgeois rule and expliot for the imperialist nations. Places like India play a different part in the world market then the US. India is a source of cheap labour and cheap taxes and prices. The foreign bourgeois in the imperialist nations are the buyers and explioters of this labour.

There are a few countries who have broken away from imperialism. The DPRK and Cuba have fully broken away. Revolutions in Nepal, Colombia, certian parts of India and Philipines limit imperialism there. Then countries like Venezuela, Libya and Iran are inbetween and make it hard for imperialism to completly divide the world.

However imperialism can find enough labour and resources in it's neo-colonies through Asia, Africa and South America. Imperialism invests heavily in these nations, and makes a larger profit in return. Which makes your claim that labour aristocracy is decreasing unlikely, since the labor aristocracy survives while imperialism survives.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 05, 2006 12:47 am
So long as you're selling your labour power you're a worker and potentially revolutionary, no matter what relative comforts you might have. Arguing that first-world workers are a labour-aristocracy is neo-Maoist nonsense and something that true Socialists utterly reject.

Yes, at the moment there is a lull in an explicitly revolutionary conscious amongst the working-class of America, but this has ocurred historically ( post-WW2 & the Cold War) and it doesn't mean we should take up a defeatist, anti-worker position. In fact, some members might disagree with me and I would be glad to see some examples of Socialist action in America (I know there are a few examples I can't think of right now).

The anti-CPE demonstrations in France, the GAMA strikes in Ireland and the continual anti-War demonstrations throughout the first world demostrate that a revolutionary consciousness is potentially there amongst workers and young people, it simply requires a poke with a Socialist stick.
What has happened to all the Labor Unions in the United States. I have noticed a steady decline in the amount of Unions in the United States since the mid 1970's. What is the cause of this and how can we as revolutionaries turn it around, Comrades?

[Enragé]

I agree with the idea of a labour aristocracy, not in the sense that it means that the western working class is not exploited, but in the sense that they are kept quiet by the funneling through of superprofits gained in third world countries.

In other words, capitalists exploit the working class in western nations ("at home") less to keep them from revolting, and are able to do this because they make such huge profits in poorer countries, where the working class has not been able to organise against capitalism (whereas certainly in the past, mostly in western europe, they have done so to a great extent), and where governments are more openly oppressive towards their people (e.g, if you strike, you'll get the army sent after you)
This however does not take away the fact (obviously) that the western working class is indeed a part of the global proletariate, that it is indeed exploited, and that therefore it is in its interest to see capitalism destroyed.

[BreadBros]

What proof do you have it is disappearing?

Obviously I doubt either of us could provide cited sources. I don't happen to know of any economist(s) that keep track of such statistics. The basic process I'm referring to is the opening of vast new labor markets in China and India. Because of this capitalists are able to do away with the traditionally high wages they payed for a lot of industries, particularly manufacturing. This would explain the increasing gap between rich and poor. At least compared to say the middle part of this century when US imperialism was particularly widespread and powerful in a post-WWII world and the gap between rich and poor was more or less kept into a certain check by high wages.


Intergrate into international capitalism?

Yes, I would say several countries that were agrarian exploited nations a few years ago are now fairly integrated into capitalism: India and China are the big ones.


The world is clearly divided into explioting nations (imperialists like US, UK) and a expliotated nations. Investments into India, China etc increases every year. This is imperialism or rather neo-colonialism. Many countries did break away from old imperialism. Now the are in the new imperialism. The comprador bourgeois rule and expliot for the imperialist nations.

Investments seem fairly irrelevant in this regard. American capitalists invest billions of dollars in the UK market and vice-versa, but I would not term this an imperialistically exploited relationship. The point is that a domestic bourgeoisie class is now not only in existence in a significant way, it is no longer subserviant to foreign bourgeoisie's. As for investments, of course this process is not an "overnight one" so foreign interests are not fully out of the country, this never happens in emerging capitalist countries, it didnt to the US or to France, so I dont see why it is shocking that UK companies or investers would be interested in an emerging market. The economic relationship has changed to the point that labeling this "neo-colonialism" seems incredibly far-fetched to me.


Places like India play a different part in the world market then the US. India is a source of cheap labour and cheap taxes and prices. The foreign bourgeois in the imperialist nations are the buyers and explioters of this labour.

Yes, it is a source of cheap labor, ALL emerging capitalist countries are. Its their comparative advantage as nascent countries. Furthermore, the point is that it is increasingly the Indian or Chinese bourgeoisie that is exploiting Indian or Chinese labor, not American or European ones. The fact that products are consumed in the US or Europe does not necessarily say anything about the economic relations between countries.


There are a few countries who have broken away from imperialism. The DPRK and Cuba have fully broken away. Revolutions in Nepal, Colombia, certian parts of India and Philipines limit imperialism there. Then countries like Venezuela, Libya and Iran are inbetween and make it hard for imperialism to completly divide the world.

You're missing several big ones: Russia, China, India, Vietnam.


However imperialism can find enough labour and resources in it's neo-colonies through Asia, Africa and South America. Imperialism invests heavily in these nations, and makes a larger profit in return. Which makes your claim that labour aristocracy is decreasing unlikely, since the labor aristocracy survives while imperialism survives.

A valid point, however, in case you haven't noticed, US imperialist ventures in all three of those countries haven't been going particularly well. In Asia the US now faces significant competition from China. South America is increasingly going the Chavez route and becoming like those "in between" countries you describe, making it harder for the US to exploit. I have no doubt that should enough South American countries go in this anti-imperialist direction to be powerful enough to tip the scales in their favor, some sort of outright anti-US rebellion might happen. Africa would be the only place where exploitation, especially in terms of oil and other raw resources, is still in full swing. Of course as recent military ventures there by Western countries show, things there are quite unpredictable and using force to keep your investments is difficult, so nothing is certain.

[Hiero]

Obviously I doubt either of us could provide cited sources.

Well my friend has actually started doing his PHD in politics, and he has been comparing wages accros the world. He uses some method involving purchasing power parity (PPP) and then comparies the wages. Generally he found in average the wages in the neo-colonies have gone down and for the most part in the imperialist countries they stay stable. On average incomes in the west are incredibly higher.

However at basic level we can just look at government figures for investment in 3rd world countries to prove imperialism is still going strong. Therefore the labour aristocracy is going strong.


The basic process I'm referring to is the opening of vast new labor markets in China and India. Because of this capitalists are able to do away with the traditionally high wages they payed for a lot of industries, particularly manufacturing.

When you say "traditionally high wages they payed for a lot of industries" you mean industries based in the US?


Investments seem fairly irrelevant in this regard. American capitalists invest billions of dollars in the UK market and vice-versa, but I would not term this an imperialistically exploited relationship

When American capitalist invest in the UK, the pay UK wages. They have to abide by UK taxes and laws. So they are not making super profits, like they do in 3rd world countries.


The economic relationship has changed to the point that labeling this "neo-colonialism" seems incredibly far-fetched to me.

How? After WW2 (around that time), after colonialism was overthrown it didn't take long for large investment into these countries occured. With the national bourgeois in complete power, they act as comprador bourgeois. Why do you think people like Sartre, Kwame Nkrumah, Fanon and many other socialists found it necessary to write about neo-colonialism?

New relationships were formed. If the bourgeois were not nationalist, they had to rely on capital from the bourgeois abroad. That means reforming the country to allow unlimited access to labour and resources.


Furthermore, the point is that it is increasingly the Indian or Chinese bourgeoisie that is exploiting Indian or Chinese labor, not American or European ones. The fact that products are consumed in the US or Europe does not necessarily say anything about the economic relations between countries.

Growth in China after Deng came to power, and in India have all been financed from the US and other European countries. The very fact that most products are consumed outside these countries does proof a imperialist relationships. It proofs that workers in the 3rd world have lower wages over all, so there is not viable market for these products. It is only 1st world citizens that can afford these products.


You're missing several big ones: Russia, China, India, Vietnam.

These countries are no longer anti-imperialist.


In Asia the US now faces significant competition from China.

The US is no in competition from China. China's growth is directly related to US invesment. The bourgeois in China is not powerfull enough to found it's own development. It couldn't simply close investments and continue selling products to the US. For starts the US would simply not except products from China. Also China owns a huge debt to the outside investers.

A country that is dependent on outside influence is not a realistic competitor. That is why people label this relationship as neo-colonialism. The countries politics and economy is obedient to outside politics and the world economy.

[Rodack]

In all honesty, my wages have gone up over the last 6 years

[rebelworker]

In recent polls American workers expect their children to do worse than them, for the first time in 40 years.

I dont know if i fully beleive in the labour aristocracy, especially not the whole US working class but there is obviously alot of truth to the funelling of money fromthe third to first world.

The theory, applied to the whole working class, is almost exclusivly applied by activists from non working class backgrounds who dont know what working life is like and are basing things alot on their class steriotypes and such.

[BreadBros]

Well my friend has actually started doing his PHD in politics, and he has been comparing wages accros the world. He uses some method involving purchasing power parity (PPP) and then comparies the wages. Generally he found in average the wages in the neo-colonies have gone down and for the most part in the imperialist countries they stay stable. On average incomes in the west are incredibly higher.

I'm assuming by neo-colonies you're referring to China, India, etc? Well, could you provide us with some of his information or research? Nothing I've read nor seen indicates such a fact. What time-period is his research based on? If it is short-term (say 5 years or less) I can definitely believe it, all economies are subject to temporary changes based on economic conditions. However, it seems clear to me that the overall economic arc of economies like the Chinese and Indian is one of modernization, rising standards of living, rising incomes, and a rapidly ascendant bourgeoisie. The overall arc of the West is less evident but also seems to correlate with a worsening of conditions. I'd be interested in finding out what proletarian wage-takers have experienced an overall rise in their wages (adjusted for inflation of course) over the past 30 years in the US, because that has not been the experience of anyone I know, nor of most people (as statistics indicate).


However at basic level we can just look at government figures for investment in 3rd world countries to prove imperialism is still going strong. Therefore the labour aristocracy is going strong.


Investment doesn't indicate imperialism. I would expect an explosion of investment in any ascendant capitalist country (as labor power is generally refined greatly through modernization), and China seems to bear that out. Its about the type of investments that are being made, so digging deeper this may bear out more informaton but saying that investment has gone up doesn't indicate anything.


When you say "traditionally high wages they payed for a lot of industries" you mean industries based in the US?


Yes.


When American capitalist invest in the UK, the pay UK wages. They have to abide by UK taxes and laws. So they are not making super profits, like they do in 3rd world countries.

I don't follow. How do UK wages or laws indicate that no superprofit is occuring? One doesn't seem to logically follow the other as most American businesses follow Chinese law and Chinese taxes when they invest in China as well. My only guess is that your point is that China has very few labor protection laws and low (or non-existant) tax codes? Thats only evident of the fact that they're using their status as a nascent capitalist country (with a relatively unproductive working class, but with low wages) to attract certain low-cost manufacturing endeavors to their country. The transnationality of corporations isnt surprising either, considering its extremely common among capitalist countries.


How? After WW2 (around that time), after colonialism was overthrown it didn't take long for large investment into these countries occured.

I dont see why that wouldn't happen in an emerging capitalist country.


With the national bourgeois in complete power, they act as comprador bourgeois. Why do you think people like Sartre, Kwame Nkrumah, Fanon and many other socialists found it necessary to write about neo-colonialism?

Because they were attempting to differentiate between apparent political reality and material reality. Many of the anti-colonial rebellions were merely political and economic control of the countries remained in European hands. They were just making that apparent. That is a far cry from many of the anti-imperialist revolutions (which most would identify as Leninist or Maoist) which did radically shift the economic structure of their societies to allow not only domestic political control but also a domestic bourgeoisie to emerge. Many of the critiques these writers wrote, about Ghana, Haiti, French Africa, are still pertinent, but they are a far cry from even applying to countries like China or Russia.


New relationships were formed. If the bourgeois were not nationalist, they had to rely on capital from the bourgeois abroad. That means reforming the country to allow unlimited access to labour and resources.

What?! No it doesn't, that would be extremely foolish and needlessly self-destructive of them. It means that some access to labour and resources continues to exist because of the weakness of the emerging bourgeoisie in comparison to extremely powerful Western ones. Of course, as they grow and establish themselves this process ends. Huge shifts like this don't happen overnight.


Growth in China after Deng came to power, and in India have all been financed from the US and other European countries. The very fact that most products are consumed outside these countries does proof a imperialist relationships. It proofs that workers in the 3rd world have lower wages over all, so there is not viable market for these products. It is only 1st world citizens that can afford these products.

Thats not true at all. While the emerging economies may start out weak and thus focus on an exportation market, that shifts as domestic economic power grows. This is evident in the growth of domestic Chinese consumption of automobiles, electronics, computers, etc. It already is or is slated to become the major consumer of automobiles in the near future.


These countries are no longer anti-imperialist.

A bizarre statement, if you mean they aren't waging anti-imperialist struggles, of course they're not. Why on earth would they, they already had those and they succeeded, thus the lack of necessity for them now. They are anti-imperialist in the sense that the bourgeoisie would likely fight back like hell to prevent foreign competitors from dominating them now.


The US is no in competition from China. China's growth is directly related to US invesment. The bourgeois in China is not powerfull enough to found it's own development. It couldn't simply close investments and continue selling products to the US. For starts the US would simply not except products from China. Also China owns a huge debt to the outside investers.

If you look at what you quotes of me, I said in Asia. No, China could not shut itself out from US trade, no capitalist country in the world can shut itself off from trade without significantly regressing technologically and in terms of wealth. What I said is there is competition between China and the US to capitalize on other emerging capitalist economies. The most important one that comes to mind right now is Vietnam, although I'm sure there will be many more over the years.


A country that is dependent on outside influence is not a realistic competitor. That is why people label this relationship as neo-colonialism. The countries politics and economy is obedient to outside politics and the world economy.

All capitalist economies are reliant on outside influence, if you don't partake in trade you end up where North Korea is at today which isn't a good place to be. That doesn't mean competition can't take place, unless you deny the evident reality of inter-capitalist competition. People label these countries as neo-colonialist because they need some way to keep the idea alive that Leninist theory still applies to the world, and not concede that the Chinese and Russian revolutions inevitably had to lead to capitalism.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 09:12 am


There has been a labour aristocracy, but it's rapidly disappearing


Yes it is disappearing.

What proof do you have it is disappearing?
BreadBros mentioned a big factor - the huge economic shift. Emerging economies are creating compeition for the USA, UK and EU. Right now the third world still subsidises first world debt, but new competition is lowering standards for first world workers.

There's also the tendency for the rate of profit to fall - so workers are squeezed for several reasons. The fall of the SU also created less incentive for imperialist countries to show that capitalism is better (imo).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 05, 2006 12:47 am




labour-aristocracy is neo-Maoist nonsense and something that true Socialists utterly reject.

Yes, at the moment there is a lull in an explicitly revolutionary conscious amongst the working-class of America, but this has ocurred historically ( post-WW2 & the Cold War) and it doesn't mean we should take up a defeatist, anti-worker position. In fact, some members might disagree with me and I would be glad to see some examples of Socialist action in America (I know there are a few examples I can't think of right now).


What are you babbling about? How is Maoism not true socialism and who are you to make that judgement of a worldwide movement with millions of followers?

Labor Aristocracy is not nonsense. Explain how it is. It makes perfect sense. It's the real reason why workers have never been revolutionary in America; they have always felt like comfortable slaves with their petty material things. A worker in the third world is far more likely to rise up than a worker in America or England. Why? Because the working class is far better off.

It is not defeatist, it's just an analysis of the situation today, 2006 in the first world. It's not a permananent thing, as a depression or deep recession could change it completely.



The anti-CPE demonstrations in France, the GAMA strikes in Ireland and the continual anti-War demonstrations throughout the first world demostrate that a revolutionary consciousness is potentially there amongst workers and young people, it simply requires a poke with a Socialist stick.

Those are not necessarily revolutionary. I'm not familiar with the GAMA strikes or the anti-CPE demonstrations (Were those the student protests against the layoff law?), but the anti-war protests aren't revolutionary. They often have a base in liberal reformist democrats, and often just want to replace bush. They are just leftist activism.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 05:05 am
I'm not familiar with the GAMA strikes or the anti-CPE demonstrations (Were those the student protests against the layoff law?), but the anti-war protests aren't revolutionary. They often have a base in liberal reformist democrats, and often just want to replace bush. They are just leftist activism.
The Irish ferries strike was an even bigger example.

[blake 3:17]

People might find the article linked to useful.

From The Myth of the Labor Aristocracy (http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128) by Charles Post:
While living and working conditions for workers in the "global North" have deteriorated sharply since the late 1960s, the result has not been, for the most part, the growth of revolutionary consciousness. Instead we have seen reactionary ideas - racism, sexism, homophobia, nativism, militarism - strengthened in a significant sector of workers in the advanced capitalist countries. Since the late 1970s, nearly one-third of U.S. voters in union households have voted for right-wing Republicans.(1)

This paradox poses a crucial challenge for revolutionary Marxists. However, we need to avoid "mythological" explanations, imagined explanations for real phenomena, whether to interpret natural events or to explain the nature of society. Unfortunately, one of the most influential explanations within the left for working class reformism and conservatism - the theory of the "labor aristocracy" - is such a myth.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 11, 2006 05:51 am

It's the real reason why workers have never been revolutionary in America

Oh yeah?

The Homestead Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike)

The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike)

The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rysu6a.html)

Battle of Blair Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)

1934 West Coast Longshoremen Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_Longshore_Strike)

Minneapolis Teamsters Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of_1934)

Great Railroad Strike of 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1922)

Harlan County War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County_War)

Wheatland Hop Riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatland_Hop_Riot)

Lawrence Textile Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_textile_strike)

1909 McKees Rocks Strike

Haymarket Riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_riot)

etc.
All (or nearly all) of those happened before WWII. If someone wanted to defend the idea of an international Labor Aristocracy they could just point out that the huge international expansion of American influence post-WWII (and thus the reaping of "superprofit") correlates with the decline of mass labor revolts within the US.

[SPK]

This is an interesting discussion. I read a few pieces that I found linked on Wikipedia – other recommendations are welcome – to better understand the original contexts in which Lenin, Trotsky, and others formulated the idea of the labor aristocracy.

Lenin argued in “Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International”: “The war (World War I) is being fought by all the Great Powers for the purpose of plunder, carving up the world, acquiring markets, and enslaving nations. To the bourgeoisie it brings higher profits; to a thin crust of the labour bureaucracy and aristocracy, and also to the petty bourgeoisie (the intelligentsia, etc.) which ‘travels’ with the working-class movement, it promises morsels of those profits. The economic basis of ‘social-chauvinism’ (this term being more precise than the term social-patriotism, as the latter embellishes the evil) and of opportunism is the same, namely, an alliance between an insignificant section at the ‘top’ of the labour movement, and its ‘own’ national bourgeoisie, directed against the masses of the proletariat…”

This theory has a number of key points. First, the labor aristocracy is not merely an objective strata of the working class, one which has a relative advantage in terms of wages or benefits. That stratification is at all times a structural characteristic of capitalism, and its mere presence clearly cannot be viewed as sufficient to prevent the development of revolutionary consciousness among the proletariat as a whole. (Otherwise, how would we ever be able to overthrow capitalism?) This concept of a labor aristocracy is gesturing at something else: the subjective, political character of that working class strata – or perhaps just a part of it -- which has a relative advantage in terms of its living conditions.

Second, and more specifically, Lenin wasn’t merely addressing the automatic or spontaneous political consciousness of this privileged section in general. He is instead speaking of the part of that privileged strata which is politically organized, in labor unions and in the parties which arose out of them, and exercises leadership or has influence over the proletarian movements. (Hence the references to the “labor bureaucracy” and “the insignificant section at the top of the labor movement”). Of course, the immediate context to Lenin’s essay was the abandonment of internationalist principles by reformist social democratic parties in western europe, and their support for their respective home countries during the mass slaughter of WWI. The betrayal by the Second International’s leadership in this regard – a subjective, political component -- had its concrete, material basis in the existence of a relatively privileged strata of the proletariat.

Lenin’s understanding of the labor aristocracy was not a mechanistic form of economism, where different wage levels or the standards of living within the working class automatically determined political consciousness. The labor aristocracy must, instead, be carefully built and molded by the bourgeoisie, whose interests it is designed to serve (though it does not always do so successfully): a.) there must be a conscious political component to the privileged strata; b.) that politics must at some level attempt to address the working class as a whole – not just the privileged strata -- however objectively incorrect or subjectively treacherous that engagement may be; c.) that political line, which serves the interests of both the strata itself and the ruling class, must be taken up – or have the potential to be taken up – by significant numbers of workers; d.) the labor aristocracy must be ultimately successful in suppressing progressive or revolutionary developments, since that is its goal or project as defined by the bourgeoisie; and e.) preferably, the labor aristocracy would actually be able in some cases to swing the working class to proactively support ruling class offensives (as occurred with WWI) – offensives which would also, by extension, benefit the strata itself at obviously reduced levels. If the “insignificant” privileged strata could not transcend its own limited boundaries in these ways, then it would not be of any special concern to Lenin or other revolutionaries and could be treated simply as another arm of the bourgeoisie.

I agree that vast resources are transferred from the developing and “third” worlds to the west and, particularly, the usa – way out of proportion to the relative populations of those countries. This may arise out of imperialist domination, neocolonial relations, or more conventional capitalist trade. But the simple, objective existence of a privileged strata – whether an entire country, such as the usa, or within a particular country – does not automatically eliminate the possibility for progressive or revolutionary developments. I don’t believe that just because a population has X number of televisions, or Y number of mobile phones, or Z number of plastic doodads from China and India that they are axiomatically incapable of revolutionary action. BreadBros made this important point:


Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 08:05 pm
In theory Lenin and Trotsky accepted the theory. However nearly all first-world Leninists and Trotskyists as well as most leftists reject the theory for the fact that it encumbers their ability to apply revolutionary theory to the working classes around them. So, its not widely held...

When we, provisionally, set aside the question of the objective existence of a privileged strata, and look instead at the subjective, political aspects of that strata – as Lenin did – what other perspectives arise? I’m talking here in terms of what’s happening in the usa.

(edited for punctuation)

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by BreadBros+November 04, 2006 09:12 pm--> (BreadBros @ November 04, 2006 09:12 pm)

[email protected] 04, 2006 10:40 pm
I hear about some construction workers in certain big cities getting paid more than 100K a year
:wacko:

Sources?

Its wrong. Unionized carpenters in the US get ~ $20/hour usually. More or less depending on time within union. You'd have to work insane hours and days to get near $100,000 a year. Non-unionized workers make even less. I suppose if you run a small construction business it might be possible to make $100,000 though, depending on the area you work in. [/b]
Actually, in my city, 30 bucks an hour is the going rate for a union carpenter, which translates into about 65k per year for a 40 hour week.

A union electrician in my city gets about 45 bucks an hour which brings the annual to about 94k for a 40 hour week.

Almost no union carpenter or electrician in my area doesn't work at least some overtime. With overtime, both of those jobs generally make 100k+, not counting the benefits and various bonuses.

[Hiero]

I'm assuming by neo-colonies you're referring to China, India, etc? Well, could you provide us with some of his information or research? Nothing I've read nor seen indicates such a fact.

He hasn't finished his research. I just told you what I know. What have you been reading, the only people who claim wages have increased in the 3rd world countries are bourgeois economist.


However, it seems clear to me that the overall economic arc of economies like the Chinese and Indian is one of modernization, rising standards of living, rising incomes, and a rapidly ascendant bourgeoisie

The "modernisation" is mostly felt in the comprador bourgeois and middle class. All that the poor have acheived is being brought into the ranks of proletariat. That's what the bourgeois econonist refer to as improvement.


Investment doesn't indicate imperialism.

But it does. How else does imperialism work?


I would expect an explosion of investment in any ascendant capitalist country (as labor power is generally refined greatly through modernization), and China seems to bear that out.

How is this not imperialism? Capitalism is based on expliotation, the developed capitalist countries can offerd to invest in these places. And of course under capitalism they expliot labour, but with imperialism not only labour they expliot prices and taxes of the neo-colony.


I can't be really bothered responding to the rest. What is your basic arguement, there is no such thing as neo-imperialism?

[The Grey Blur]

So Hiero, what do you in your area, go about telling workers they are cogs in the neo-imperialist machine?

[gilhyle]

It is an obvious fact that capitalism does not treat all workers equally and this is an important political fact.

It is very unfortunate if the Labour theory of Value gets identified with an argument about whether certain members of the working class are or can be revolutionary. That isnt what the theory was for. As SPK points out it was developed to explain what was happening to Social Democracy.

There is an important tension within trotskyism between expalnations for the absence of revolution which describe it as being caused by failures of leadership and leninist explanations based on the materialist analysis of the objective condition of the workers.

There is a great danger - particularly in the Trotskyist and anarchist traditions - to go back to a pre-marxist argument that workers are not revolutionary because they are deceived.

Of course one can adopt a more nuanced approach and recognise that the ability of deceptive social democratic leaders to do thier work is based on the material position of workers. But that dodges the key hard question which that there are always some workers in whose short term interest revolution definitely isnt. And that group can be bigger or smaller....and in imperialist countries at the moment that group is very large.

It is very large for two reasons, firstly because of the high wages paid to skilled workers concentrated in imperialist countries and secondly because the relatively high wages paid to unskilled labor in imperialist countries, compared with the cost of unskilled labor in imperialised countries. Make no mistake about it, you go to an African country and you can recruit unskilled labor for about one twentieth or even one thirtieth of the cost of an unskilled labor in a core European imperialist country.

Now that affects politics.

But there are two ways over it - workers who benefit from capitalism dont necessarily always just take the short term view and a lot of revolutionary politics is about persuading workers to consider the longer term view. So its wrong to condemn workers as irretrievably lost to revolutionary ideas because they are well paid within capitalism. Secondly, no matter what benefits capitalism gives certain workers, it also - at the margins - takes those benefits away or fails to continue with any given rate of improvement. Thus in the U.S. there is strong statistical evidence to show that over the last thirty years unskilled labor has not achieved any significant material improvement. (And this testifies to the complete failure of the American trade union movement over that period) So even where there is discriminatory benefit for some/many workers, the marginal attacks on those benefits are constant and form the life's blood of the class struggle.

But, you know, the deep, deep degeneration of social democracy and the craven failures of the trade union movement in the Imperialist world has to come from somewhere, it has to have a material base and if we dont recognise that we just dont understand what is going on. If we dont recognise it, we never get past the simplistic idea that left wing politics is just about being persuasive and whoever is more persuasive is going to win over workers - its not like that : the basic marxist idea that revolutionary politics is about the class struggle, about the fight for better working and living conditions is at stake here. Revolutionaries have to understand that the seizure of the state can only happen when a) it is in the best material interests of the mass of workers and b) when the mass of workers see that in relation to the key issues of the day.

[SPK]

Total defeat for the usa’s imperial project in Iraq is nearing, and most amerikans understand that. I think it is reasonable to conclude as much, given the recent election results and the approximately 80% disapproval rating of Bush’s handling of the war. This impending defeat in Iraq is vastly more serious than the defeat in Vietnam, both to the bourgeoisie here as well as the privileged sector of the proletariat.

Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world -- unlike Vietnam, obviously -- one which will basically be out of the hands of us energy firms once withdrawal is complete. There is a global oil shortage, caused by intensifying demand from newly-developing economies like China and India and by the rapid consumption of existing reserves, which now significantly exceeds the rate of discovery of new oil. Any concessions – like drilling rights – on those remaining reserves are increasingly going to non-amerikan energy firms: China’s recent entry into Sudan comes to mind. More commonly, existing reserves are being placed under the control of nationalized energy firms which act as direct arms of their respective states – they are not open to exploitation by foreign or multinational entities. This decreasing access to international energy supplies was one of the key factors spurring the amerikan bourgeoisie to invade and occupy Iraq. They wanted to ultimately monopolize such access in Iraq and, by extension, other areas of the middle east, via the use of military force. Conversely, they wanted to withhold access from their erstwhile allies, primarily japan and europe, who are the primary competitors in the global oil markets.

The occupation has clearly been disastrous for the bourgeoisie in the usa and has only heightened the contradictions which compelled them to attack Iraq in the first place.

Now, many on RevLeft essentially define the labor aristocracy in the usa as that sector which “gets the goodies” and which absorbs tremendous amounts of commodities and natural resources from the developing and third worlds. (Some believe that the entire usa, from an international perspective, constitutes such a sector, and I’m speaking more to this idea.) It is suggested that the political consciousness of this sector is automatically and mechanistically derived from that material, economic position.

If that formulation is correct (which I don’t think is the case), then an obvious question arises: why isn’t the labor aristocracy in the usa fighting tooth and nail to achieve an amerikan victory in Iraq, which would seem consistent with its interests? A defeat there will immediately and directly impact the privileged sector of the proletariat in a way that simply did not apply to the Vietnam war: the ramifications will be economic, unlike the more political or ideological impact in the case of Vietnam. The “goodies” that help to quiet and neutralize the working class here are highly dependent upon cheap and reliable sources of energy, which are imminently threatened by a defeat in Iraq.

The influx of cheap, imported commodities – from low-wage developing countries -- has reduced inflation over the past quarter century or so: this has helped to ameliorate the effects of the constant lowering of workers’ wages here. Easy access to credit has allowed more workers to buy homes, cars, and other big-ticket items: when you have to pay off your debt and extortionate interest, of course, that ensnares you in the workplace and makes you more subservient to the bosses. Those homes tend to be out in the suburbs, where land is cheaper and housing more affordable, so a car or SUV is needed as well: this stuff takes up people’s time that the ruling class would not want to see them using for other things, like, say, political activity. Someone has to mow the lawn, fix the roof, do other maintenance on the house, drive around for hours on the superhighways to work or the shopping mall, and so forth. We are all familiar with the underlying designs and purposes of these kinds of consumerism.

But all of these economic “benefits” which have accrued to the privileged section of the proletariat will become almost impossible to maintain, given an amerikan defeat in Iraq.
- Importing goods from overseas and moving it around the country requires energy for transport, and that cost will clearly spike upwards, given amerika’s weakened condition. Oil embargoes, similar to those by OPEC in 1973 and Iran in 1978-79, are a possibility again. Certain countries may simply make the long-term decision to halt all oil sales to the usa and find markets elsewhere: Venezuela has threatened to do exactly this and make China its primary customer instead. An increase in energy prices would make imports much more expensive, assuming that shortages could be avoided in the first place. In many industries, there would be few domestic producers to fill the gap.
- Imports also require a strong dollar, which is threatened by a hike in oil prices. Spending a lot of money on oil increases the trade deficit, which is turn requires the issuance of debt by the us government, which in turn reduces the long-term value of the dollar. A weakened dollar would mean that imports cost more – more dollars would be required to purchase the relevant foreign currencies, such as the Chinese yuan – and, again, there are in many economic sectors few domestic producers to compete with these imports.
- Easy access to credit requires that interest rates be relatively low. These rates are only going to increase as the Treasury is forced to finance the ballooning trade deficit, again spurred on by an increase in energy costs. Why? In order to find buyers for its debt notes, the Treasury must offer higher interest rates in order to compete with other central banks that are also issuing debt. These rates ultimately push up the rates that workers’ get for their home or car loans.

Given all of this, why isn’t the so-called “labor aristocracy” in the usa – as many folks on RevLeft define it -- fighting to help the ruling class win its war in Iraq? The passage I quoted from Lenin in my first post was written during World War I, when tens of millions of european workers went to their death fighting for “their” countries. That certainly isn’t happening here today. In the Vietnam war, over 50,000 amerikan soldiers were killed and hundreds of thousands wounded. Not even that is happening here today. About 3,000 amerikan soldiers have currently been killed in Iraq. Why is there this discrepancy between what the privileged sector of the proletariat “should” be doing and what it is actually doing?