Labour Aristocracy

[Post-Something]

Can somebody please explain to me the different takes on "labour aristocracy" please? I've heard there is all sorts of positions, like Trotskyist, Maoist etc.

I thought the fundamental issue was that better off capitalist countries exploit poorer countries, therefor raising the well being of the proletariat and securing things like their own welfare state.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

huh?
:confused:

[Yehuda Stern]

Labor Aristocracy means the layers of the working class that are elevated from the others, due to privileges extended by the bourgeois state. These layers therefore have a vested interest in the imperialist system, which overrides their revolutionary interest in times of relative social peace. These layers form the basis for the reformist parties, and in some cases, for the centrist groups.

The definition of what groups are part of the labor aristocracy changes from one tendency to another. Some claim that there is no such thing, while others claim that all workers in imperialist countries are aristocratic. We would argue that while workers in imperialist countries do have privileges in relation to workers in oppressed countries, only small layers qualify as truly aristocratic, with the exception of colonialist states like Israel and apartheid-era South Africa.

[Post-Something]

So you could say it was some sort of "middle class"? Or "Bourgeoisified Proletariat"? When did this phenomenon arise? Was there something like this in early empires, or is it specific to capitalism? Does your relation to the means of production change once you become "aristocratic"?

Also, why don't you believe that all workers in imperialist countries are aristocratic? We in Britain have a much better standard of living than lots of other countries don't we? and there is a clear divide between the "aristocratic workers" and the lower end workers and lumpen here.

[Yehuda Stern]

So you could say it was some sort of "middle class"? Or "Bourgeoisified Proletariat"?

Is, and yes, number two is pretty spot on. Middle class usually refers more to professionals - lawyers, economists, etc. I'd like to note that unlike the ruling class, there is actually a pretty good prospect of labor aristocrats becoming revolutionaries - but only under extreme class pressures on the side of proletariat, i.e. a strong revolutionary movement.


When did this phenomenon arise? Was there something like this in early empires, or is it specific to capitalism?

The phenomena is specific to capitalism inasmuch as the proletariat is, but buying off a part of the oppressed class so it can serve as an agent for the ruling class is a pretty old trick - the royalist democrats in the French revolution represented such a faction in the bourgeoisie.

The rise of a labor aristocracy is part of the imperialist epoch. The conquests of the imperialist states and the resulting enrichment of those states allowed the imperialists to buy off certain layers of the working class, notably trade union bureaucrats. The privileges given to these layers made them supportive of imperialism - Lenin dubbed them 'social-imperialists' and saw them as the basis for reformism among the working class, and condemned any move towards satisfying the needs of these layers before those of the oppressed workers.


Does your relation to the means of production change once you become "aristocratic"?

Not necessarily - in fact, the ruling class needs the aristocracy to remain proletarian, although of course their positions are much better than those of other workers.


Also, why don't you believe that all workers in imperialist countries are aristocratic? We in Britain have a much better standard of living than lots of other countries don't we?

Like I said, the common British worker is privileged in relation to other workers, but is not aristocratic. There is a difference between being better off than other workers - even workers in some third world countries are better than those in others, for example, Latin American workers in relation to African workers - and having a vested interest in the imperialist system.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This idea is pulled apart here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm