Rich Workers

[Binary011]

What about workers who get paid a large salary, don't exploit anyone because they don't own any productive assets, but are just rich? Opinions on this?

[Oneironaut]

Some crane operators I work with make six figures. This, of course, is after years of training. As far as discerning their class, they are of course proletarian. They are exploited along with the rest of workers- they get shafted on hours and can lose their job in a blink. Just because they make more money than the rest, their relation to the means of production are identical with the rest of the working class.

[Binary011]

But then, wouldn't they oppose the dissolution of capitalism? They would probably say that they have a good life and a good job under it and wouldn't want to see it dissolved.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is exactly the phenomenon that Lenin and Trotsky called the labor aristocracy. The bourgeoisie, especially in the imperialist countries, uses its profits to buy off some of the more skilled workers and also trade union and party bureaucrats. These better off elements of the working class form the social base of reformism. While they can be won over to revolutionary ideas under certain conditions, their living conditions will under normal conditions serve as a counter-tendency to their class interests and will cause them to support capitalism and imperialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

To expand on the points made by Yehuda, members of the labour aristocracy generally do not have the same interests as the rest of the working class because their privileges depend on the exploitation of other workers, especially in the developing world, and so they often side with the employers during periods of revolutionary struggle and will try to restrain the militancy of others workers and thereby maintain capitalism. The existence of this privileged stratum and the effects on the rest of the working class mean that one of the main tasks for communists living in the imperialist core is to try and break the ideological and institutional ties between the labour aristocracy and the main body of the proletariat. Institutional ties are of special importance because members of the labour aristocracy often occupy key positions in the trade union movement and use their power to prevent industrial conflict between employees and employers.

[Revy]

Well, I guess that could apply to actors and musicians that make wealthy sums of money too.

I suppose some of them could potentially support socialism. Elliott Gould was being interviewed by the World Socialist Web Site and after hearing the name, he talked about how he was interested by socialism and Karl Marx.

[Comrada J]

If they make $100,000+, then communism will not appeal to them. You can be sure about that much.

[Yehuda Stern]

No, actors and musicians are not part of the proletariat in any way. They're classic middle class.

[jake williams]

No, actors and musicians are not part of the proletariat in any way. They're classic middle class.
That really depends. The vast majority of artists of any type - even people who get paid to do it - have other jobs, and they're not exactly hedge fund managers.

[Yehuda Stern]

True, but I'm talking about people whose main occupation is artistic.

[BobKKKindle$]

I suppose some of them could potentially support socialism

Marx acknowledged that there will always be some intellectuals who choose to reject their class origins and support the struggles of the working class against their employers. However, it is idealistic to assume that this will also be true of the labour aristocracy, as the members of this stratum have an objective interest in preserving imperialism, because the imperialist exploitation of the developing world is what allows the capitalists to provide aristocrats with the material privileges which separate them from the rest of the working class. Labour aristocrats have historically formed the basis not only of reformism but also of the new union movement during the 19th century which limited its membership and organisational scope to skilled workers who negotiated improvements with employers instead of asserting their demands.

[redguard2009]

Generally, don't just a book by it's cover, but we can make informed estimations. It's already been said, but in the most general form, the more well-off one is under capitalism, especially compared to the majority, the less likely they are to acknowledge the necessity of change let alone actively or passively support a movement for change.

[Mindtoaster]

Marx acknowledged that there will always be some intellectuals who choose to reject their class origins and support the struggles of the working class against their employers. However, it is idealistic to assume that this will also be true of the labour aristocracy, as the members of this stratum have an objective interest in preserving imperialism, because the imperialist exploitation of the developing world is what allows the capitalists to provide aristocrats with the material privileges which separate them from the rest of the working class. Labour aristocrats have historically formed the basis not only of reformism but also of the new union movement during the 19th century which limited its membership and organisational scope to skilled workers who negotiated improvements with employers instead of asserting their demands.

Were not doctors a part of the Bolshevik revolution?

[redguard2009]

That's essentially what he just said; intellectuals and members of the "labour aristrocracy", re: priviledged, rich workers still have the capability to objectively assess the situation and "choose" to "support the correct", but most will undeniably be drawn to maintaining the status quo and their wealth within the capitalist system as a basic notion of what is in their best interests. Besides the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie, priviledged, wealthy workers have the most to lose from the redistribution of wealth and capital that would ensue in a socialist society (even if this loss is only imagined, it is a fear that has led many to eschew socialism in favour of continued capitalism).

[Revy]

Technically, successful actors and musicians are employed and are workers. They just happen to make lots of money. Artists can be attracted to socialism and put forward their wealth and influence for the cause. Obviously, I don't see this as very likely, but there is the possibility that some would be attracted to it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Successful actors" generally invest their huge piles of $$$ in either business or real estate (Ah-nuld).

[cop an Attitude]

In order for an employer to obtain any profit off of a worker the worker needs to create a suprlus past his wage. no matter what wage they make they are still losing weath if they do not own the means of production. Now they may own stocks which is a diffrent story but they are still opressed

[Oneironaut]

But then, wouldn't they oppose the dissolution of capitalism? They would probably say that they have a good life and a good job under it and wouldn't want to see it dissolved.

The workers I talk to say that yes their life is good. But they likewise tell me how much shit laborers and carpenters go through and say they understand our plight. They've also expressed to me how they have no control over what they do and they are far overworked. I feel like if a workers' revolution was to occur here in the US soon, these crane operators would be on our side. However, they are such a small minority in the company that even if they didn't support us, we'd ask them kindly once more for their support, and if the answer is still no then they could simply fuck off.

[cop an Attitude]

But then, wouldn't they oppose the dissolution of capitalism? They would probably say that they have a good life and a good job under it and wouldn't want to see it dissolved.

I agree with RedPlauge with just this added point. Most of the higher paid proletariots worked their way up to the status that they are currently at. They wouldn't forget how it was when they were at entery level. then again some of them think thats the way it should be, workers working their way up, to bad thats not realistic.

[redguard2009]

There will always be "lucky" workers who understand how hard it was to achieve their current level of prosperity, as opposed to workers who think their "victory" is an attestment to their personal ability and think anyone else not capable of achieving what they have have only themselves to blame and not the system.

[Sendo]

the hard part comes in convincing the privlieged workers that they deserve a SAY in what goes on, more than just a paystub, and that a socialist society will eventually raise the gross standard of living. You can also play on fears of retirement or healthcare in the capitalist paradigm. Don't be so quick to write them off. But don't talk about exploitation too much, you'll just get "I'm not greedy, I don't need to make $200,000/year; fuck that, I'll just stay home with my family. Have your dinky little parades"

[chegitz guevara]

If they make $100,000+, then communism will not appeal to them. You can be sure about that much.

That's quite an assumption. Some of us computer programmers can make butt loads of money and still be anarchists and communists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Oooh - into computer programming now, aren't you? ;)

[What programming language, if you don't mind my asking?]

[Comrada J]

That's quite an assumption.
I don't make assumptions. Communism isn't at it's best right now, not an 'assumption' that it doesn't appeal to the middle-class (let alone the 100k+ bracket), those are the facts. They'll always be exceptions to the rule, but exceptions are just that.


"Successful actors" generally invest their huge piles of $$$ in either business or real estateRight, so anyone making so much can easily buy shares or real estate, at which point we can't really call them 'working class' anymore, now can we?