Labour Aristocracy

[Saint-Just]

Labour aristocracy is the theory that the labour movement has an aristocratic element to it. This is to say that the labour movement has two stratas in a specific society. The Labour aristocrats and the poorer labourers. The labour aristocrats are those at in the upper echelons of the working class, specifically the ones that control working class bodies and organs of the state and such organisations as trade unions. This labour aristocracy often only exists in developed imperialist nations where the standard of living is high enough for one part of the working class that they have less impetus to become dissident against the capitalist system.

"This stratum of bourgeoisified workers or “labour aristocracy”, who have
become completely petty-bourgeois in their mode of life, in the amount of
their earnings, and in their point of view, serve as the main support of
the Second International and, in our day, the principal social (not
military) support of the bourgeoisie. They are the real agents of the
bourgeoisie in the labour movement, the labour lieutenants of the
capitalist class, the real carriers of reformism and chauvinism." V.I. Lenin

How did this situation come about? and what are the implications of it?

This developed at the beginning of industrialisation and at heights of imperialism in the 19th century. It is supposed that the working class, recieved greater living standards and were often more skilled than their third-world counterparts. Out of this the labour aristocrats came to compromise with the capitalist class. The capitalist class, who were very rich would placate the relatively well off working class so as to sustain the imperialist nations. They would bring those working class they represent into ignorance and low levels of politicisation.

Marx never mentioned this labour aristocracy, but did make passing comments on its existence. Lenin mentioned it though. I would advise to everyone that this concept is of little importance. Labour aristocracy only exists as certain points in history and in certain societies. Some debate as to whether it really does exist. I post this because Just Joe was interested in it.

[Just Joe]

i'd say this almost certainly does exist.

you'd think a country like the USA with almost no Socialism would have a militant working class with low living standards, but they have almost no Socialist movement amongst the working people. this is because they are benefiting through the exploitation of the third world. the American working people enjoy a high living standard because the products they buy are created by slave labour in the third world. its like the old poor southern white argument; he may be oppressed, but he's not as oppressed as the poor southern black so there class interests are not the same. same thing happened to a lesser extent in the 6 counties.

basically, the people of America and other imperialist countries aren't gonna accept Socialism until there cheap labour is cut off from abroad and their economy collapses.

[Arkham]

Actually, from the sounds of it, there is a very important ramification of this class for the US, as it exists quite potently, and obviously. The national labor board. Strikes are outlawed unless approved by the National Labor board which is stacked with corporate friendly "union leaders", who obviously fall into this category. Not only that, but certain kinds of strikes, such as sit-down strikes, are always illegal, and these rules were decided by Big Labor around 1938-39. This sounds like your aristocratic working class to me.

[redstar2000]

I confess a certain scepticism about the "labor aristocracy" explanation for the lack of revolutionary consciousness in the western working classes.

There's some truth to it...but I don't think nearly as much as many would argue.

If your skilled, high-paying job disappears because the company moved its production facilities to Thailand or Indonesia, are you still a "labor aristocrat"? Even when both you and your spouse end up working at Wal-mart?

Clearly there are some genuine "labor aristocrats". Airline pilots would be a good example; Pacific coast "A" list longshoremen or Mississippi riverboat pilots would be others. There are still some jobs that can't be exported and are difficult to replace with machines/computers.

But I think the ruling class is trying...and, if they last long enough, will drive every worker down to bare subsistence. That's the logic of their system.

I think we should look more deeply into the phenomenon of "false consciousness"...why do the western working classes seem to prefer patriotism, religion, racism, etc., etc. to Marxist class consciousness?

Does capitalist control of the educational system, the media, etc. give them an overwhelming advantage in the ideological battle? And is that advantage temporary? What happens if capitalism becomes mired in more or less permanent depression or even just stagnation? Does material reality eventually reassert its domination over consciousness?

It's a problem that every Marxist should consider.

:cool:

[Just Joe]

if your company moves to Indonesia, you still get to wear Nike and Adidas at cheap prices. you still get to enjoy a fairly high living standard with the commodities that have been produced by the third world.

theres no doubt some labour aristocracy exists in the form of high payed working class people and trade unionists, but i'm more thinking of imperialist nations exploiting the working people of smaller nations.

thats why the working class white southerner detests Karl Marx, because he doesn't see himself as working class. to see yourself at the bottom, you have to know you are exploited and you have nothing to lose. the white southern man still enjoys a higher position than the black working man and even the black middle class man. so he doesn't need to revolt as it were. he is already a different kind of middle class.

[Anonymous]

"I think we should look more deeply into the phenomenon of "false consciousness"...why do the western working classes seem to prefer patriotism, religion, racism, etc., etc. to Marxist class consciousness?"

Culture is the basis of society. Not "class" or economic status. Western culture naturaly values Religion, partriotism, and often times racism more so then "class".

The belief in the individual's ability to supercede all boundaries is too strong.