BobKKKindle$
20th January 2008, 02:17
I briefly mentioned this in a thread in the discrimination forum, but it hasn't yet been dealt with, and I think it's an important issue. The concept of the Labour Aristocracy is a cause of much disagreement amongst socialists, and in the past I have regarded the concept as something used by some Maoists to justify their contempt for white workers in the developed world and of little theoretical value or practical relevance. The main argument of the theory, as I understand it, is that a small section of the working class in the developed states is granted concessions and a share of the super-profits generated through imperialism, such that they become opposed to revolutionary change. The exact size of this section is, again, a subject of debate; MIM takes the extreme view and argues that every white worker is part of the Labour Aristocracy in the oppressor nations. I have always thought that the Labour Aristocracy does not exist at all. However, it does appear that there is something resembling a labour aristocracy in the oppressor nations (based on empirical evidence) in the form of agricultural producers, which can comprise up to 10% of the working population in some states. At this point I'll switch to my original post:
I've been thinking about the Labour Aristocracy in the Oppressor Nations and have come to the conclusion that the interests of agricultural producers may be in conflict with the interests of peasants in the developing world, such that agricultural producers in the developed world have an interest in maintaining the status quo and would support the use of armed force against revolutions in the oppressed nations. My reasoning is thus; The system of agricultural subsidies and restrictions on the import of foreign foodstuffs (known as the Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union) allows agricultural producers to retain their traditional existence, whilst at the same time denies peasants in the oppressed nations an export market for their goods and, when surplus production is 'dumped', drives down domestic prices, resulting in a loss of income. Were it not for this system, agricultural producers would be unable to withstand the market competition of peasants in the oppressed nations, who are able to produce foodstuffs at a lower cost, and so would eventually become part of the proletariat.
Thus it would appear there is an antagonistic relationship between these two groups. I've never thought about this before now...
If this analysis is correct, should we argue for the elimination of existing agricultural policies, knowing this would undermine the conditions of agricultural producers and possibly alienate this group from Socialist politics? Is there anyone that denies the existence of an antagonistic relationship - have I just analysed this incorrectly?
I've been thinking about the Labour Aristocracy in the Oppressor Nations and have come to the conclusion that the interests of agricultural producers may be in conflict with the interests of peasants in the developing world, such that agricultural producers in the developed world have an interest in maintaining the status quo and would support the use of armed force against revolutions in the oppressed nations. My reasoning is thus; The system of agricultural subsidies and restrictions on the import of foreign foodstuffs (known as the Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union) allows agricultural producers to retain their traditional existence, whilst at the same time denies peasants in the oppressed nations an export market for their goods and, when surplus production is 'dumped', drives down domestic prices, resulting in a loss of income. Were it not for this system, agricultural producers would be unable to withstand the market competition of peasants in the oppressed nations, who are able to produce foodstuffs at a lower cost, and so would eventually become part of the proletariat.
Thus it would appear there is an antagonistic relationship between these two groups. I've never thought about this before now...
If this analysis is correct, should we argue for the elimination of existing agricultural policies, knowing this would undermine the conditions of agricultural producers and possibly alienate this group from Socialist politics? Is there anyone that denies the existence of an antagonistic relationship - have I just analysed this incorrectly?