A.J.
8th January 2007, 18:28
The debate about what constitutes the labour aristocracy always seems to be a contentious one. But it is one of the most critical importance, in my opinion, which must not be shyed away from.
Anyway, this analysis of the labour aristocracy is one that I most agree with that I have come across to date
Although the analysis deals specifically with the U.S. there are characteristics of the defintion elaborated which can be applied to imperialist countries generally.....
The Labor Aristocracy
The most critical question that we must address in analyzing the U.S. proletariat is the extent and influence of the labor aristocracy – the privileged upper stratum of the working class.
"One of the chief causes hampering the revolutionary working class movement in the developed countries," wrote Lenin, "is the fact that because of their colonial possessions and the super-profits gained by finance capital, etc., the capitalists of these countries have been able to create a relatively larger and more stable labour aristocracy, a section which comprises a small minority of the working class. This minority enjoys better terms of employment and is most imbued with a narrow craft minded spirit and with petty bourgeois and imperialist prejudices. It forms the real social pillar of the Second International, of the reformists and the 'Centrists'; at present it might even be called the social mainstay of the bourgeoisie. No preparation of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is possible, even in the preliminary sense, unless an immediate, systematic, extensive and open struggle is waged against this stratum...."37
Numerous positions have been put forward about the extent of the labor aristocracy in the U.S. Right opportunists, represented in the first place by the Communist Party, USA, deny the existence of a bribed sector of the working class. Other pseudo-Marxists have advanced the thesis that the entire U.S. working class is bribed, or at least, that the industrial proletariat has been "bourgeoisified." Both these positions are wildly inaccurate and have been created to justify counterrevolutionary political lines. A correct understanding of the extent of the labor aristocracy in the U.S. must be based on a concrete analysis of the actual conditions of all the various sectors of the working class, and of the social and political role they play.
The condition of the U.S. working class can be compared to that of the British working class during the period of Britain's industrial monopoly and colonial hegemony during the second half of the 19th century. In 1885, Engels wrote:
"[D]uring the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out among them; the privileged minority pocketed the most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then."38
According to Engels, the fact that the great mass of workers received "a temporary share now and then" did not mean that the entire working class was bribed, that it was in its interest to support imperialism, that it was no longer exploited, that it no longer suffered under capitalism, etc., as certain American pseudo-Marxists claim in regard to the U.S. working class (a position completely consistent with the propaganda of U.S. imperialism that "the workers and the capitalists have the same interests"). These benefits, said Engels, had led to a temporary decline in the proletarian socialist movement in Britain but, he added, these benefits would be eroded and the socialist movement would rise again.
Following World War II, the U.S. bourgeoisie enjoyed a monopoly position in imperialist plunder and world trade. It was able to create in the U.S. a relatively large and influential labor aristocracy and, at the same time, spread temporary and partial privileges to much larger sectors of the working class. A large trade union bureaucracy has been built under the administration of the labor aristocracy, staffed with the most loyal and pro-imperialist "labor leaders." It is the strength and influence of the labor aristocracy and the trade union bureaucracy that has temporarily retarded the revolutionary proletarian movement in the U.S.
We estimate that the labor aristocracy in the U.S. numbers some 5,700,000, or 8% of the proletarian class. This includes some 2,000,000 workers in the industrial sector, some 1,300,000 workers in the construction sector, some 1,000,000 workers in the transport sector with the remainder in the utilities, services, financial, commercial and government sectors. In the following pages we will examine the extent of the labor aristocracy in the two sectors where most of this stratum is concentrated: construction and industry. We will also discuss the trade union bureaucracy and the class position of those who administer it. First, however, a few general characteristics of the labor aristocracy must be discussed.
The distinction between the labor aristocracy and the common proletariat has its origin in the division between skilled and unskilled labor that arose with the development of capitalism. The system of handicraft production, typical of the feudal era in Europe, relied on the skilled labor of the artisan. Capitalist cooperation brought artisans together in large workshops and, subsequently, manufacturing led to the strict segmentation of labor and created a new stratum of unskilled workers alongside the skilled workers. These unskilled workers could be paid less than the skilled ones because the value of their labor power did not include the additional costs of training. With the introduction of machinery, the number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers was greatly enlarged, while the number of skilled workers was reduced. Though feudalism was not established in the U.S., handicraft methods were the basis of early production in the colonial era, therefore the evolution of the capitalist workshop proceeded along the same lines as in Europe.39
At the dawn of the imperialist era the great mass of workers had been reduced to performing unskilled and semi-skilled work, while mental and skilled labor had been increasingly monopolized in the hands of a small elite. The capitalists nurtured the small number of skilled workers into a labor aristocracy, providing wages and other privileges that, in comparison with those of the common worker, far outstripped any justification in terms of the greater value of skilled labor. The capitalists, with conscious purpose, stratified the workforce to the maximum extent possible, with the responsibilities, compensation and working conditions of the different strata specifically designed to divide the working class politically.
"Historically, the bourgeoisie of every country," wrote Filip Kota of the Party of Labor of Albania, "has bought off some of the qualified workers, the working class aristocracy, and detached them from the masses of the proletariat, by providing them with easy jobs and posts with fewer headaches but greater rewards. Fat salaries, favours and advantages brought about their gradual estrangement from the working class, both economically and ideologically. [T]he bourgeoisie is interested in increasing the ranks of this aristocracy by artificially increasing the number of job qualification and categories which leads to pronounced differences between the wages of the ordinary workers and those of the specialized ones, and by promoting the latter to various jobs and responsibilities in and outside production."40
With the introduction of imperialist superprofits the bourgeoisie of the developed capitalist countries have been able to effectively bribe the top stratum of workers, the labor aristocracy, and turn it into a trusted and loyal ally.
The selection of those workers to receive special training is not a matter left up to chance. The capitalists select and promote a certain category of workers to skilled positions. Whether this selection is the responsibility of the capitalists' supervisors or of the reactionary union officials (who are direct beneficiaries of the traditions which maintain the labor aristocracy), the results are the same. National minority and women workers are, for the most part, excluded from skilled positions in order to perpetuate the special oppression of these workers and inflame national chauvinism and male supremacy. In order to guarantee the political character of the labor aristocracy, the most "loyal" and reactionary workers are selected.
The size of the labor aristocracy, the jobs associated with it, and the extent of the privileges given to the workers holding these jobs, are not fixed permanently. The size and privileges of the labor aristocracy grew with the monopoly position of U.S. imperialism and its temporary revival following World War II. With the deepening of the economic crisis the capitalist class is forced to narrow the ranks of the labor aristocracy, reducing many to the position of common workers.
The labor aristocracy cannot be identified by any simple measure of skill because it is not primarily defined by skill, but by privileges. Some skilled workers are included among the labor aristocracy, others are not. A railroad car repairer may be no more skilled than an auto mechanic, simply measuring mechanical knowledge. But rail transport is critical to the bourgeoisie and it is therefore willing to pay a premium to preserve "labor peace" in this sector. Thus, the railroad car repairer is given the privileges of the labor aristocracy while the auto mechanic remains, more or less, a common worker.
Nor can the labor aristocracy be identified by a simple measure of wages. Wages vary considerably among regions and various economic sectors because of national oppression, women's oppression, the labor market, the organization of labor, the importance of an industry to the economy, etc. To one degree or another, the capitalists have created a labor aristocracy in every region and in every economic sector. The wages of the labor aristocracy are not set by any country-wide standard. However, they are set in relation to the common wages in a particular region and industry.
An electrician in a Southern textile mill, for example, may only make half the wages of an electrician in a steel mill in the industrial Midwest; his wages may, in fact, be only slightly higher than those of a common worker, taking the average of all regions and all industries. But in the context of the Southern textile mill he is a labor aristocrat, receiving wages 50% higher than those received by most of the textile operatives (whose wages are particularly depressed because of special oppression).
In addition to money wages, moreover, he enjoys all the non-monetary privileges granted to industrial maintenance workers (including relief from having to do much work), and may receive other fringe benefits commonly received by labor aristocrats, such as the use of company tools and property for personal profit, the operation, in his free time, of concessions (drink machines, etc.) or other small businesses in the plant, etc. In identifying the labor aristocracy we must, therefore, consider a number of factors including wages and other privileges, taking into account all the conditions faced by each group of workers, and the particular conditions in each region and economic sector.
In addition to economic privileges the labor aristocracy receives political privileges unavailable to the masses of workers. Access to the bourgeois political system is afforded, in the first place, through the trade union apparatus, which is the bastion of the labor aristocracy. The legal trade unions are completely tied up with the bourgeois political parties: primarily with the Democratic Party and, in some cases, with the Republican Party.
Through their connections with the bourgeois political parties the labor aristocrats have access to the state apparatus to some extent, both on a national and local level. In some industrial centers like Chicago, the labor aristocracy plays a significant role in the Democratic Party and the local political bureaucracy. Many labor aristocrats serve as local Party precinct leaders (and so on) and receive all the traditional benefits built into these positions. Of course, their access to them is predicated on their reactionary political stand and they use these positions, not to fight for the interests of the working class, but to increase the influence of the labor aristocracy, to promote its political position and strengthen its ideological and political grip on the masses.
In addition to these institutions many labor aristocrats belong to a host of other political organizations which play extremely reactionary roles, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. These organizations serve as mass bases for fascism among the working people. Their active membership is largely made up of small proprietors, petty bourgeois employees and labor aristocrats. All these organizations – the trade unions, the bourgeois political parties and the various other political organizations – serve as centers for bourgeois ideological and political indoctrination of the labor aristocracy, in order that they might best play their role as "the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class movement, the labor lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism."41
http://www.mltranslations.org/US/Rpo/classes/classes2.htm
(scroll to about half-way down the page)
Thoughts?
Anyway, this analysis of the labour aristocracy is one that I most agree with that I have come across to date
Although the analysis deals specifically with the U.S. there are characteristics of the defintion elaborated which can be applied to imperialist countries generally.....
The Labor Aristocracy
The most critical question that we must address in analyzing the U.S. proletariat is the extent and influence of the labor aristocracy – the privileged upper stratum of the working class.
"One of the chief causes hampering the revolutionary working class movement in the developed countries," wrote Lenin, "is the fact that because of their colonial possessions and the super-profits gained by finance capital, etc., the capitalists of these countries have been able to create a relatively larger and more stable labour aristocracy, a section which comprises a small minority of the working class. This minority enjoys better terms of employment and is most imbued with a narrow craft minded spirit and with petty bourgeois and imperialist prejudices. It forms the real social pillar of the Second International, of the reformists and the 'Centrists'; at present it might even be called the social mainstay of the bourgeoisie. No preparation of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is possible, even in the preliminary sense, unless an immediate, systematic, extensive and open struggle is waged against this stratum...."37
Numerous positions have been put forward about the extent of the labor aristocracy in the U.S. Right opportunists, represented in the first place by the Communist Party, USA, deny the existence of a bribed sector of the working class. Other pseudo-Marxists have advanced the thesis that the entire U.S. working class is bribed, or at least, that the industrial proletariat has been "bourgeoisified." Both these positions are wildly inaccurate and have been created to justify counterrevolutionary political lines. A correct understanding of the extent of the labor aristocracy in the U.S. must be based on a concrete analysis of the actual conditions of all the various sectors of the working class, and of the social and political role they play.
The condition of the U.S. working class can be compared to that of the British working class during the period of Britain's industrial monopoly and colonial hegemony during the second half of the 19th century. In 1885, Engels wrote:
"[D]uring the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out among them; the privileged minority pocketed the most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then."38
According to Engels, the fact that the great mass of workers received "a temporary share now and then" did not mean that the entire working class was bribed, that it was in its interest to support imperialism, that it was no longer exploited, that it no longer suffered under capitalism, etc., as certain American pseudo-Marxists claim in regard to the U.S. working class (a position completely consistent with the propaganda of U.S. imperialism that "the workers and the capitalists have the same interests"). These benefits, said Engels, had led to a temporary decline in the proletarian socialist movement in Britain but, he added, these benefits would be eroded and the socialist movement would rise again.
Following World War II, the U.S. bourgeoisie enjoyed a monopoly position in imperialist plunder and world trade. It was able to create in the U.S. a relatively large and influential labor aristocracy and, at the same time, spread temporary and partial privileges to much larger sectors of the working class. A large trade union bureaucracy has been built under the administration of the labor aristocracy, staffed with the most loyal and pro-imperialist "labor leaders." It is the strength and influence of the labor aristocracy and the trade union bureaucracy that has temporarily retarded the revolutionary proletarian movement in the U.S.
We estimate that the labor aristocracy in the U.S. numbers some 5,700,000, or 8% of the proletarian class. This includes some 2,000,000 workers in the industrial sector, some 1,300,000 workers in the construction sector, some 1,000,000 workers in the transport sector with the remainder in the utilities, services, financial, commercial and government sectors. In the following pages we will examine the extent of the labor aristocracy in the two sectors where most of this stratum is concentrated: construction and industry. We will also discuss the trade union bureaucracy and the class position of those who administer it. First, however, a few general characteristics of the labor aristocracy must be discussed.
The distinction between the labor aristocracy and the common proletariat has its origin in the division between skilled and unskilled labor that arose with the development of capitalism. The system of handicraft production, typical of the feudal era in Europe, relied on the skilled labor of the artisan. Capitalist cooperation brought artisans together in large workshops and, subsequently, manufacturing led to the strict segmentation of labor and created a new stratum of unskilled workers alongside the skilled workers. These unskilled workers could be paid less than the skilled ones because the value of their labor power did not include the additional costs of training. With the introduction of machinery, the number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers was greatly enlarged, while the number of skilled workers was reduced. Though feudalism was not established in the U.S., handicraft methods were the basis of early production in the colonial era, therefore the evolution of the capitalist workshop proceeded along the same lines as in Europe.39
At the dawn of the imperialist era the great mass of workers had been reduced to performing unskilled and semi-skilled work, while mental and skilled labor had been increasingly monopolized in the hands of a small elite. The capitalists nurtured the small number of skilled workers into a labor aristocracy, providing wages and other privileges that, in comparison with those of the common worker, far outstripped any justification in terms of the greater value of skilled labor. The capitalists, with conscious purpose, stratified the workforce to the maximum extent possible, with the responsibilities, compensation and working conditions of the different strata specifically designed to divide the working class politically.
"Historically, the bourgeoisie of every country," wrote Filip Kota of the Party of Labor of Albania, "has bought off some of the qualified workers, the working class aristocracy, and detached them from the masses of the proletariat, by providing them with easy jobs and posts with fewer headaches but greater rewards. Fat salaries, favours and advantages brought about their gradual estrangement from the working class, both economically and ideologically. [T]he bourgeoisie is interested in increasing the ranks of this aristocracy by artificially increasing the number of job qualification and categories which leads to pronounced differences between the wages of the ordinary workers and those of the specialized ones, and by promoting the latter to various jobs and responsibilities in and outside production."40
With the introduction of imperialist superprofits the bourgeoisie of the developed capitalist countries have been able to effectively bribe the top stratum of workers, the labor aristocracy, and turn it into a trusted and loyal ally.
The selection of those workers to receive special training is not a matter left up to chance. The capitalists select and promote a certain category of workers to skilled positions. Whether this selection is the responsibility of the capitalists' supervisors or of the reactionary union officials (who are direct beneficiaries of the traditions which maintain the labor aristocracy), the results are the same. National minority and women workers are, for the most part, excluded from skilled positions in order to perpetuate the special oppression of these workers and inflame national chauvinism and male supremacy. In order to guarantee the political character of the labor aristocracy, the most "loyal" and reactionary workers are selected.
The size of the labor aristocracy, the jobs associated with it, and the extent of the privileges given to the workers holding these jobs, are not fixed permanently. The size and privileges of the labor aristocracy grew with the monopoly position of U.S. imperialism and its temporary revival following World War II. With the deepening of the economic crisis the capitalist class is forced to narrow the ranks of the labor aristocracy, reducing many to the position of common workers.
The labor aristocracy cannot be identified by any simple measure of skill because it is not primarily defined by skill, but by privileges. Some skilled workers are included among the labor aristocracy, others are not. A railroad car repairer may be no more skilled than an auto mechanic, simply measuring mechanical knowledge. But rail transport is critical to the bourgeoisie and it is therefore willing to pay a premium to preserve "labor peace" in this sector. Thus, the railroad car repairer is given the privileges of the labor aristocracy while the auto mechanic remains, more or less, a common worker.
Nor can the labor aristocracy be identified by a simple measure of wages. Wages vary considerably among regions and various economic sectors because of national oppression, women's oppression, the labor market, the organization of labor, the importance of an industry to the economy, etc. To one degree or another, the capitalists have created a labor aristocracy in every region and in every economic sector. The wages of the labor aristocracy are not set by any country-wide standard. However, they are set in relation to the common wages in a particular region and industry.
An electrician in a Southern textile mill, for example, may only make half the wages of an electrician in a steel mill in the industrial Midwest; his wages may, in fact, be only slightly higher than those of a common worker, taking the average of all regions and all industries. But in the context of the Southern textile mill he is a labor aristocrat, receiving wages 50% higher than those received by most of the textile operatives (whose wages are particularly depressed because of special oppression).
In addition to money wages, moreover, he enjoys all the non-monetary privileges granted to industrial maintenance workers (including relief from having to do much work), and may receive other fringe benefits commonly received by labor aristocrats, such as the use of company tools and property for personal profit, the operation, in his free time, of concessions (drink machines, etc.) or other small businesses in the plant, etc. In identifying the labor aristocracy we must, therefore, consider a number of factors including wages and other privileges, taking into account all the conditions faced by each group of workers, and the particular conditions in each region and economic sector.
In addition to economic privileges the labor aristocracy receives political privileges unavailable to the masses of workers. Access to the bourgeois political system is afforded, in the first place, through the trade union apparatus, which is the bastion of the labor aristocracy. The legal trade unions are completely tied up with the bourgeois political parties: primarily with the Democratic Party and, in some cases, with the Republican Party.
Through their connections with the bourgeois political parties the labor aristocrats have access to the state apparatus to some extent, both on a national and local level. In some industrial centers like Chicago, the labor aristocracy plays a significant role in the Democratic Party and the local political bureaucracy. Many labor aristocrats serve as local Party precinct leaders (and so on) and receive all the traditional benefits built into these positions. Of course, their access to them is predicated on their reactionary political stand and they use these positions, not to fight for the interests of the working class, but to increase the influence of the labor aristocracy, to promote its political position and strengthen its ideological and political grip on the masses.
In addition to these institutions many labor aristocrats belong to a host of other political organizations which play extremely reactionary roles, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. These organizations serve as mass bases for fascism among the working people. Their active membership is largely made up of small proprietors, petty bourgeois employees and labor aristocrats. All these organizations – the trade unions, the bourgeois political parties and the various other political organizations – serve as centers for bourgeois ideological and political indoctrination of the labor aristocracy, in order that they might best play their role as "the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class movement, the labor lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism."41
http://www.mltranslations.org/US/Rpo/classes/classes2.htm
(scroll to about half-way down the page)
Thoughts?