Labor Aristocracy? fell free to inform me...

[molecular transmutation]

I had recently heard of a political idea of Labor Aristocracy, i would like to know its historical origins if possible.

[Janus]

Previous threads on the subject:
Labor aristocracy (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58253&hl=labor+aristocracy)

Labor aristocracy (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59169&hl=labor+aristocracy)

[The Grey Blur]

A labor aristocracy is created when a stratum of workers in a nation are won over to the bourgeois, through better pay or priveliges or whatever, and become their representatives among the workers.

This generally occurs in an Imperialist nation and was recognised by Lenin as existing in the Western Imperialist nations - Germany, England, US.

[molecular transmutation]

ok, sounds interesting, i should probably check wiki, however it might be tainted by conservatives... o well.

[gilhyle]

Given the extent of the failure of the working class in imperialist countries to cleave to revolutioonry positions throughout much of the twentieth century, there are at least two approaches to explaining this, one emphasised by Lenin in explaining the support of the Second International parties for the FIrst World War (Labour Aristocracy Theory) and the second elaborated by Trotsky to explain the retreat from revoltionary politics in the 1920s and 1930s - 'Failure of Leadership' theory.

The first approach is more evidently materialistic and the second is more political and short-termist.

The two are not necessarily alternatives, although often considered as such. This is well illustrated by the fact that while emphasising the 'failure of leadership' Trotsky also articulated the LA theory as well and developed a parrallel conception of 'bureacuracy' as a clique within the working class state analogous to the labour aristocracy as a clique within the working class in capitalist society.

Labour aristocracy theory derives from the understanding that the working class is not one homogenous mass, but is a complex set of material relationships creating a range of alternative politicial interests, which only resolve themselves into a majority revolutionary shared interest in very particular circumstances.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:15 am
Given the extent of the failure of the working class in imperialist countries to cleave to revolutioonry positions throughout much of the twentieth century, there are at least two approaches to explaining this, one emphasised by Lenin in explaining the support of the Second International parties for the FIrst World War (Labour Aristocracy Theory) and the second elaborated by Trotsky to explain the retreat from revoltionary politics in the 1920s and 1930s - 'Failure of Leadership' theory.

The first approach is more evidently materialistic and the second is more political and short-termist.

The two are not necessarily alternatives, although often considered as such. This is well illustrated by the fact that while emphasising the 'failure of leadership' Trotsky also articulated the LA theory as well and developed a parrallel conception of 'bureacuracy' as a clique within the working class state analogous to the labour aristocracy as a clique within the working class in capitalist society.

Labour aristocracy theory derives from the understanding that the working class is not one homogenous mass, but is a complex set of material relationships creating a range of alternative politicial interests, which only resolve themselves into a majority revolutionary shared interest in very particular circumstances.
Although I should read their works myself, what solutions do they propose to deal with this problem?

[Hiero]

Communist can not really deal with this problem, as in we can't just make it go away. It will disappear when imperialist profits disappear. That will only dissapear when the neo-colonies liberate themselves and move towards socialist planing.

What communist should do is support and inform workers of revolutions in other countries. They should have a clear understanding of who the labor aristocracy is, and work with the oppressed and proleterait that is left in teh 1st world countries. Communist can deal with imperialism, rather then defeating the labor aristocracy before teh defeat of imperialism.

Here is the chapter in Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, that talks about the labor aristocracy.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...zz99h-276-GUESS (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm#v22zz99h-276-GUESS)

[gilhyle]

The basic idea of Marxism has an important element of fatalism in it, that is uncomfortable for many 'activists'. Marx and Engels worked hard to move the socialist movement towards understanding that material development is required for socialist revolution. Until that happens, socialst revolution is not possible and the socialist program must be adapted accordingly to build the movement as capitialism develops. The key idea was not to allow capitalism to develop without also building a strong workign class movement - as it happens, what has actually happened.

The complication in this was when Lenin showed that it is possible to break the defences of capitalism at their weak points - in imperialised countries. The idea was that the peasantry in imperialised countries, by cleaving to the revolutionary cause, could alter the balance of power within the working class within the imperialist countries, thus undoing the influence of the labor aristorcracy. They could do this by falling under the leadership of the small working classes in the imperialised countries who had few labor aristrocratic tendencies.

Arguably Lenin's strategy not only failed but had a devastating effect on the working class movement, leading the leaders of the trade unions and the social democratic parties to break with Marx & Engels program and - after a long struggle - take the bulk of the working class with them. This in turn has since allowed globalising capitalism to undermine the trade union movement hollowing out the alliance buillt by the Second International parties, leaving as I write only the social democratic parties in place as the last remnant of the working class movement built with such difficulty in the last quarter of the 19th century and the first quarter of the twentieth century.

Whether Lenin was wrong or not can be debated. I tend to think his tactic was reasonable, although it failed. It is excessive hindsight which condemns his approach. Kautsky's criticism - in my view - remains wrong. But if you decided Lenin was wrong you might end up concluding that all you can do is wait because labor aristocratic influences within the working class are currently so divisive and influential that it cannot be overcome at this time.

I think we are not yet at the point in rebuilding the working class movement, that the question needs to be worked through.

[blake 3:17]

THere's been some good debate on this in Against the Current.


The Myth of the Labor Aristocracy, Part 1
— Charles Post

(Note: There are two tables and a graph that accompany this article, but are only available in the print edition.)

[This is the first of a two-part of this essay will appear in our next issue. Read the second part online.]

THE PERSISTENCE OF reformism and outright conservatism among workers, especially in the imperialist centers of North America, Western Europe and Japan, has long confounded revolutionary socialists. The broadest outlines of Marxist theory tell us that capitalism creates it own "gravediggers" - a class of collective producers with no interest in the maintenance of private ownership of the means of production. The capitalist system's drive to maximize profits should force workers to struggle against their employers, progressively broaden their struggle and eventually overthrow the system and replace it with their democratic self-rule.

The reality of the last century seems to challenge these basic Marxist ideas. Despite occasional mass militancy and even proto-revolutionary struggles, the majority of the working class in the developed capitalist countries have remained tied to reformist politics - a politics premised on the possibility of improving the condition of workers without the overthrow of capitalism.

Article. (http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128)


And in response:

Myth--Or Reality?
— Steve Bloom

[An abridged version of this text appears in ATC 126. What follows is the full article – the editors of AGAINST THE CURRENT.]

IN ATCs 123 and 124 a two-part article by Charlie Post declares “The Myth of the Labor Aristocracy.” As the author notes, this idea was originated by Frederick Engels, one of the founders of Marxism. It was subsequently developed by Lenin as an explanation for the social chauvinist capitulation of the Second International at the beginning of World War.

Lenin’s approach to this question has been pretty much accepted by most Marxists up to the present day.

Post’s effort to correct our thinking rests on two fundamental lines of argument:

1) The labor aristocracy concept attributes higher wages and other privileges enjoyed by workers in the imperialist centers to the superprofits of monopoly capital in the colonial world (“third world” or “global south”). This idea, we are told, is mistaken. Higher wages enjoyed by workers in the imperialist centers are the direct result of higher labor productivity in the imperialist centers (global north), not the super-exploitation of the global south.

2) The assertion that more privileged strata of workers become passive supporters of capitalism, incapable of struggling against it because they are “bourgeoisified,” is empirically false. A survey of struggles in the 20th century shows that such workers have repeatedly engaged in actions that challenge the capitalist system.

Below we will examine these two lines of reasoning, then look critically at Post’s alternative explanation for the working-class conservatism that does exist today. On all counts I believe the reader will find that Lenin’s approach stands up to scrutiny.Article. (http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/348)