Labor Aristocracy

[RGacky3]

I don't want to Hijack the other thread about "who is a proletariat" So heres my thoughts about it.

1. Capitalists must pay workers less than the value of their work to make a profit.

2. Capitalists who do not invest in the third world do not profit from the third world directly, and thus must still pay their first world workers less than their value.

3. Working class people in the first world ARE exploited and ARE paid as little as economically possible for their bosses to pay them

4. For individual Capitalists profits always go ahead of class interests and class interests only go ahead when their power is directly threatened (i.e. strikes, organizing and the such). I bring up this point to show that the Capitalists are not "buying off" first world workers, because their number one concern is maximum profit

5. First world worker benefits were gained by decades of hard class struggle, sweat and blood, NOT granted to them by Capitalists, those benefits are earned, much of the third world has'nt had the chance to do that yet because of various factors, such as time (Modern AdvancedCapitalism has'nt been around those countries for that long), imperialism (other stronger countries interests are involved), and many other factors, but in much of the third world workers are organizing more than ever.

6. The profits from the third world never really reach the first world workers, really, only in the sense of cheaper consumer products, but its the Cpaitalists in the third world and the first world that profit almost 100%.

7. Non-Imperialist countries (Scandanavian countries are a good example), that have had very strong past workers struggle, but without much, if any, third world imperialism, also have a working class that does quite well.

Pro Labor Aristocracy guys, you don't have to respond to every single point, just what you feel is important or bring up new points.

[PigmerikanMao]

I don't want to Hijack the other thread about "who is a proletariat" So heres my thoughts about it.

1. Capitalists must pay workers less than the value of their work to make a profit.
No, they mustn't. You can pay someone worth or worth more than the labour they put forward because, either the profit you gain from economic strangulation from the third world offsets the cost, or the commodities the worker makes turns a profit and is worth more in price in the open market than what the labour used to create it was worth. (The whole is worth more than the sum of its parts.


2. Capitalists who do not invest in the third world do not profit from the third world directly, and thus must still pay their first world workers less than their value.
Although many capitalist bourgeoisie do not invest directly in the third world, petty bourgeoisie are a good example, they do not have to, to gain a profit from that international subjugation. Raw goods needed to make their commodities in the first world may be purchased as opposed to more expensive resources extracted from the first world, turning a profit, enough to offset the cost of buying off their first world workers.


3. Working class people in the first world ARE exploited and ARE paid as little as economically possible for their bosses to pay them
Yes, they are, because they must sell their labour in order to live. This covert wage slavery is present in all societies- may they be the first, second, third, or fourth worlds. The difference, however, is that they are not, to say AS exploted as workers in the third world, and should not be the primary concern of international worker's movements. For a comparison in this, look at Japan and China in the 1940's, Mao taught us that even though there were proletariat in Japan, they were better off because of the subjugation of China. The Japanese, although not paid more than their labour value at this time, became members of the labour aristocracy because they were exploiting other peoples in the same fashion that they were exploited by their own bougeois class. This principal contradiction between the proletariat in China and Japan meant that the Chinese could fight the Japanese because the Japanese wokers no longer had any serious revolutionary potential and had become class enemies to the other workers throughout the world, for serving the imperial bourgeoisie.


4. For individual Capitalists profits always go ahead of class interests and class interests only go ahead when their power is directly threatened (i.e. strikes, organizing and the such). I bring up this point to show that the Capitalists are not "buying off" first world workers, because their number one concern is maximum profit
The primary concern of the first world bourgeoisie is alwyas maximum profit, so long as it does not danger tha stability of their opperations. When workers went on strikes in the early industrial revolutionary period, they threatened the stability of maximum profit for the bourgeois, so concessions were made. The objective of the first world bourgeois will always be maximum profit, they will be pushing against first world workers institutions (unions, workers rights, etc), but the exploitation of these first world workers will never reach anywhere near the same level as in the third world, because the value of the domestic worker to the bourgeois is higher, as this force is closer to home and is the primary means in which the first world may enslave the third world. The first world is being bought off, this is why unions are recognized, because if they aren't, and the bourgeois repress the workers to the extent of the third world, their power becomes threatened.


6. The profits from the third world never really reach the first world workers, really, only in the sense of cheaper consumer products, but its the Capitalists in the third world and the first world that profit almost 100%.
You severely underestimate the gains made by the first world workers from this exploitation. These petty consumer goods savings add up, you know, plus, the bourgeoisie are able to raise payments to the first world workers because the pay for the third world is so low that even with these price cuts, they gain substantial profit.


7. Non-Imperialist countries (Scandanavian countries are a good example), that have had very strong past workers struggle, but without much, if any, third world imperialism, also have a working class that does quite well.
Economic imerialism can still be utilized without full military oppression. I can guarantee you that corporations and companies in nations like Scandinavia hold investments in the third and fourth worlds. Furthermore, Scandinavia is wealthier when it comes to exploitable resources, so Scandinavia doesn't have to exploit the third world for monetary gain. I would also like to point out that although Scandinavian workers are better off than say peasants or proletariat in the Congo, they are not as wealthy as more imperialistic nations such as the US, the UK, or France. Nations like Scandinavia are not the first world, they are members of the second world.


Pro Labor Aristocracy guys, you don't have to respond to every single point, just what you feel is important or bring up new points.
I didn't respond to number five because I felt it was redundant with respects to number four. I'm open to argument or criticism as well, just so long as people don't flame me for my views... that happens a lot on Revleft.

:)

[RGacky3]

Economic imerialism can still be utilized without full military oppression. I can guarantee you that corporations and companies in nations like Scandinavia hold investments in the third and fourth worlds. Furthermore, Scandinavia is wealthier when it comes to exploitable resources, so Scandinavia doesn't have to exploit the third world for monetary gain. I would also like to point out that although Scandinavian workers are better off than say peasants or proletariat in the Congo, they are not as wealthy as more imperialistic nations such as the US, the UK, or France. Nations like Scandinavia are not the first world, they are members of the second world.

I disagree, workers in places like Norway, live much much better than workings in places like the United States, they make more money, have better access to things they need, and have a secure and confortable life, even though they are ultimately wage slaves. Norway for example, got most of its wealth from its oil (lucky break), Norwegian corporations are not nearly as big as Americans and have very little (if any) impact on the third world, I'm not even sure they have segnificant investment in the third world.

But its a fact that Scandanavian workers are much better of than American.


No, they mustn't. You can pay someone worth or worth more than the labour they put forward because, either the profit you gain from economic strangulation from the third world offsets the cost, or the commodities the worker makes turns a profit and is worth more in price in the open market than what the labour used to create it was worth. (The whole is worth more than the sum of its parts.


The value of a product in the Capitalist world is the Market value, thats what I"m talking about, Bosses cannot pay their workers more than the market value of what they produce.

But I cannot think of any example where Capitalists got resources cheaper and voluntarily used part of that to raise the pay or benefits of their first world workers.


The first world is being bought off, this is why unions are recognized, because if they aren't, and the bourgeois repress the workers to the extent of the third world, their power becomes threatened.

You forget, that almos all third world countries have their own bourgeois that work hand in hand with the first world bourgeois.

Also keep in mind in the first world mass layoffs, and outsourcing, all of these hurt the first world workers, and its done to maximise profits.

Although first world workers may benefit from imperialism in the sense of cheap consumer goods, they also loose because of job loss.

One point I wanted to point that I want to refute is this concept that first world workers are exploiting third world workers, that they are somehow responsible, thats 100% untrue, and I have yet too see anything showing that.

Also considering the massaive profits from western industry, specifically white collar industry, its almost impossible to say that Capitalists are loosing on their first world workers (the only way thats possible is if they are paying them more than their market value, which NEVER happens).

so I'll summerise 4 points,

1. Capitalists work with market values, and workers are never paid more than that.

2. Scandanavian workers are substantionally better off than United States.

3. Western Workers cannot be held accountable for imperialism.

4. Imperialism also hurts first world workers in a way.

[Bud Struggle]

General Motors workers make $70 an hour.

x40 hours a week x52 weeks in a year=

$146,600.

Aristocracy indeed.

[Junius]

Uh no.


The New York Times told readers (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F11%2F1 8%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2F18sorkin.html%3Fref%3Dbus iness) that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour.

How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs. Source. (http://www.progressillinois.com/2008/11/25/kirk-repeats-gm-claim)

And even so, the "hourly wages for United Auto Workers laborers at General Motors Corp. factories actually are almost equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour."

[Bud Struggle]

Uh no.

Source. (http://www.progressillinois.com/2008/11/25/kirk-repeats-gm-claim)

And even so, the "hourly wages for United Auto Workers laborers at General Motors Corp. factories actually are almost equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour."

But the $70 is what it cost the company PER WORKER. How it's distributed doesn't matter.

Toyota has no union--maybe that's the way to go. :thumbup:

[RGacky3]

General Motors workers make $70 an hour.

x40 hours a week x52 weeks in a year=

$146,600.

Aristocracy indeed.

Why don't you read the freaking post and find out what we are talking about before posting stuff that does'nt refute anything, doesnt contribute anything and is false to begin with. We are talking about Maos (I believe) theory of the the labor aristocracy, which has nothing to do with what workers are paid in itself. Read the thread.

[Junius]

But the $70 is what it cost the company PER WORKER. How it's distributed doesn't matter. Actually it matters quite a lot, since it doesn't go into the worker's pocket but is put in some sort of (capitalist) investment. Hence it is dishonest to claim that a worker gets $70 an hour, when they won't see that money for another 40 odd years - and, of course, that money is often liable to disappear. Indeed, we've seen in recent times worker's pensions been totally eaten up by the collapse in the market.

[Bud Struggle]

Why don't you read the freaking post and find out what we are talking about before posting stuff that does'nt refute anything, doesnt contribute anything and is false to begin with. We are talking about Maos (I believe) theory of the the labor aristocracy, which has nothing to do with what workers are paid in itself. Read the thread.

Because you said:


you don't have to respond to every single point, just what you feel is important or bring up new points.

:(

You know RGacky--this is why I want to get you into the Regular RevLeft.

[Francis]

Capitalists must pay workers less than the value of their work to make a profit.

So capitalists must hire workers that they'll lose money on?

In the end, everybody is hurt by that policy, even the workers that you claim to be in support of.

[RGacky3]

So capitalists must hire workers that they'll lose money on?

In the end, everybody is hurt by that policy, even the workers that you claim to be in support of.

No your misunderstanding, the market price of the result of their work is way lower than what they are paying, so they are making money from them.

Labor aristocricy is'nt a policy, its an annalysis of modern global Capitalism, read the thread before you post.

[Bud Struggle]

So capitalists must hire workers that they'll lose money on?

In the end, everybody is hurt by that policy, even the workers that you claim to be in support of.

Seriously, everyone (me included) stop screwing with RGacky's thread.

[PigmerikanMao]

I'll summerise 4 points,

1. Capitalists work with market values, and workers are never paid more than that.
Yes, workers aren't paid more than market values, they can be paid above their labour value, however, depending on how you define the term.


2. Scandanavian workers are substantionally better off than United States.
I must concede this point, not all first and second world nations prop their economies up on the labour of the third and fourth worlds, most of these countries gain vast sums of capital for doing so, however. Nations like Sweden and Norway are an exception in that they're able to gain money from exploitation of their resources and are able to sustain workers rights (to some degree) through active involvement of people in current issues. Some proletariat are active in other nations and are not bought off. My initial point was supposed to be that this class was not reliable for revolution in nations like the US because they are too few. I must have misspoken. Apologies.


3. Western Workers cannot be held accountable for imperialism.
Most can be, actually. When they vote for an imperialist candidate who serves the bourgeoisie before the workers (may they be a democrat or republican) they are signing away consent for imperialist crimes and oppression of other peoples. Voting for someone means you're supporting them and supporters of imperialism aren't much better than imperialists themselves. Those who don't vote are doing the same thing by not making a legitimate attempt to stop the imperialist candidates from becoming elected. Apathy is unacceptable. In a democratic government, no matter how much power is given to the plutocracy, people still have a choice- if they let themselves be bought in by capitalist propaganda, that's their own cross to bear.


4. Imperialism also hurts first world workers in a way.
I never said it didn't, but it clearly hurts others more, and more often than not, first world workers benefit from imperialism as well, but in a different fashion than of what they lost. A factory worker may lose their job, but prices at the Wal*Mart are lower than ever.

[RGacky3]

Yes, workers aren't paid more than market values, they can be paid above their labour value, however, depending on how you define the term.

The problem with that is that labor value (in a Capitalist system) cannot really be measured since everything is measured by the market, even the money being paid. So really to the Capitalist Market Value is the only thing that matters.


Nations like Sweden and Norway are an exception in that they're able to gain money from exploitation of their resources and are able to sustain workers rights (to some degree) through active involvement of people in current issues. Some proletariat are active in other nations and are not bought off. My initial point was supposed to be that this class was not reliable for revolution in nations like the US because they are too few. I must have misspoken. Apologies.

That is teh Case in Norway, although in Sweedens case I'm not sure about what resource they have that would put them above other countries, in that case I think its because of intensive worker struggle.

As for your second point, I think that amay be true to a degree, since a revolutions benefits arn't so clear cut to them, however it would benefit them, and they can be bought over if the focus is on direct action against the bosses in their country, to whether or not that transfers to an internationalist type mindset I'm not sure, although I believe that if solidarity becomse part of the mindset in first world workers it might transfer over to being in solidarity with the third world, but I have nothing to back that up so I don't know.


Most can be, actually. When they vote for an imperialist candidate who serves the bourgeoisie before the workers (may they be a democrat or republican) they are signing away consent for imperialist crimes and oppression of other peoples. Voting for someone means you're supporting them and supporters of imperialism aren't much better than imperialists themselves. Those who don't vote are doing the same thing by not making a legitimate attempt to stop the imperialist candidates from becoming elected. Apathy is unacceptable. In a democratic government, no matter how much power is given to the plutocracy, people still have a choice- if they let themselves be bought in by capitalist propaganda, that's their own cross to bear.

I don't think thats the case, because that would mean that third world workers are just as accountable for their own exploitation, they vote for governments that sell their country off, that accept Capitalism, they also don't make an attempt to stop their governments from being elected.

The Imperialist country works WITH the local bourgeois and government to exploit the people.

This is the REAL problem I have with this theory, the concept that the first world workers are accountable, for the actions of their governments and bourgeois. Most workers have very little say, and most voting that they do is simply for small issues that effect them.

You cannot expect everyone to be heros and martyres, and that fact that they are not does not mean they are to blame. The workers responsibility is to provide for his family and try live a confortable life, THATS IT, us as communists, have taken up the responsibility by choice, to try and make a difference, and convice workers that solidarity is the best way to live a comfortable life, provide for their families, and have real freedom.


A factory worker may lose their job, but prices at the Wal*Mart are lower than ever.

I would probably have to concede the point there, but I'm not sure if one outweighs the other perse, although empirically its looking in your favor.

[benhur]

Although I agree with the general idea that workers in both first and third-world are exploited, it's obvious that first-world workers are better off. Even the poorest is richer (and works in better conditions) compared to people in third-world who work in sweatshops.

This is why first-world workers, though exploited, don't really feel they're being wronged, so much so they're even willing to defend capitalism! All this should prove that first-world workers are better off, or there would've been a revolution in such societies long time ago. Nor is it a coincidence that revolutions have always taken place in poor nations.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Most can be, actually. When they vote for an imperialist candidate who serves the bourgeoisie before the workers (may they be a democrat or republican) they are signing away consent for imperialist crimes and oppression of other peoples. Voting for someone means you're supporting them and supporters of imperialism aren't much better than imperialists themselves. Those who don't vote are doing the same thing by not making a legitimate attempt to stop the imperialist candidates from becoming elected. Apathy is unacceptable. In a democratic government, no matter how much power is given to the plutocracy, people still have a choice- if they let themselves be bought in by capitalist propaganda, that's their own cross to bear.

I think this statement really underestimates just how little power voters have other their constituents/representatives in bourgeois "democracies" - in the UK certainly, there is nothing binding politicians to their election promises - sure, they might get kicked out after a term, but... Ave, bossa nova! similaris bossa seneca

Against a political background like that, and with next to no awareness of the alternatives (and any such awareness will likely be highly propagandised against) due to the educational, cultural and political spheres being dominated by the various strains of bourgeois thought, can you really blame the majority of Western workers for ignorance and apathy?

And of course, for those that decide to rise above simple apathy, they get caught like flies in a web by one of the various strands of bourgeois "activism" that criticises things from within the context of bourgeois capitalism, rather than from outside that context.

But, every system is bound to have it's Outside Context Problem. Western bourgeois capitalist "democracy" is no exception.

[BobKKKindle$]

A few quick points: It is still in the interests of the bourgeoisie to hire labour-aristocrats despite the fact that they perform unproductive tasks and receive more than the value of their labour and so cannot function as a source of surplus-value, because labour-aristocrats do serve an important role - they purchase goods produced in the periphery and thereby allow the bourgeoisie to realize surplus value generated through the exploitation of workers living in oppressed nations, and also use their influence in the labour movement to limit the struggles of people who are exploited (i.e. the proletariat) and thus maintain the stability of capitalism. The absence of a labour aristocracy in the periphery means that revolution is most likely to break out in an oppressed nation and this has certainly been the case historically as almost all major revolutionary struggles during the course of this century have occurred outside the imperialist core - but this does not mean that the core possesses no revolutionary potential whatsoever, and does not require the deportation of labour-aristocrats after the core has been occupied by proletarians of the periphery, as advocated by some third-worldist organizations, because a successful socialist revolution in the periphery could lead to the re-proletarianization of people who are currently labour-aristocrats, or communists living in the core may be able to successfully separate the labour-aristocracy from the rest of the working population and thereby unleash the revolutionary potential of those who would still be classed as members of the proletariat.

[danyboy27]

A few quick points: It is still in the interests of the bourgeoisie to hire labour-aristocrats despite the fact that they perform unproductive tasks

what kind of unproductive task are you talking about? most people in a buisness are hired to generate profit for the buisness and the big boss, i dont really think that when the boss hired my supervisor he said: hoo well, she doing a useless task, but its not important beccause she gonna buy stuff and make the economy roll! Most of people hired, regardless of their salary are doing something useful, do you really think my boss gonna blast 50 000 a year for someone that doing useless things? bullshit man. Most of supervisor and cadres i met in my life where has exploited has i was, the only thing that differences them from me is the stress they have to carry all day AND the shitload of task they received from the bosses, seriously, i didnt think its worth the 3 more dollar an hour they had. that the big advantage of being a pawn sometimes.

[BobKKKindle$]

In Marxist terminology, "productive" does not imply a value judgment on the type of labour someone performs and does not mean the same as "useful". From the MIA Glossary:

“Productive labour is labour which makes a profit for someone.

The terms productive and unproductive labour in Marxist literature, as generally in bourgeois economic literature, are distinct from the concept of labour which is useful or not. Useful labour is purposive activity which meets a human need, whether of oneself or of someone else; productive labour, on the other hand, is labour which is productive in the economic sense, labour which creates new value"

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm

[danyboy27]

In Marxist terminology, "productive" does not imply a value judgment on the type of labour someone performs and does not mean the same as "useful". From the MIA Glossary:

“Productive labour is labour which makes a profit for someone.

The terms productive and unproductive labour in Marxist literature, as generally in bourgeois economic literature, are distinct from the concept of labour which is useful or not. Useful labour is purposive activity which meets a human need, whether of oneself or of someone else; productive labour, on the other hand, is labour which is productive in the economic sense, labour which creates new value"

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm

like what, how to make simple things complicated.

[Hit The North]

In Marxist terminology, "productive" does not imply a value judgment on the type of labour someone performs and does not mean the same as "useful". From the MIA Glossary:

“Productive labour is labour which makes a profit for someone.

The terms productive and unproductive labour in Marxist literature, as generally in bourgeois economic literature, are distinct from the concept of labour which is useful or not. Useful labour is purposive activity which meets a human need, whether of oneself or of someone else; productive labour, on the other hand, is labour which is productive in the economic sense, labour which creates new value"

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm

In the same glossary it asserts that
In bourgeois society, labour can only create new value by expanding capital (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capital),

So which workers, in your view, do not have their labour power directed into expanding the capital of the enterprise they work for?

[RGacky3]

This is why first-world workers, though exploited, don't really feel they're being wronged, so much so they're even willing to defend capitalism! All this should prove that first-world workers are better off, or there would've been a revolution in such societies long time ago. Nor is it a coincidence that revolutions have always taken place in poor nations.

I compleatly agree with you, but that does'nt translate to the first world workers being A: Responsible for imperialism, B: The "enemy", C: Incabable of class struggle (emperical evidence shows that they are).


The terms productive and unproductive labour in Marxist literature, as generally in bourgeois economic literature, are distinct from the concept of labour which is useful or not. Useful labour is purposive activity which meets a human need, whether of oneself or of someone else; productive labour, on the other hand, is labour which is productive in the economic sense, labour which creates new value"

You know as well as I know that Capitalists are not interested in "Useful Value" or what I consider real social value, they are interested in market value, thats all that they are worried about, and first world workers, and some third world (they are not mutually exclusive) although they may not produce a good amount of real value or new value they make a large amount of market value.

Advertising is a good example of this, advertising does'nt create any real value, i.e. the Marxist Value, it simply props up other products or services for other Capitalists, because of that however their market value is very high, and THAT, is what Capitalism is all about, so you at this point, you can only judge workers and their value to employers by Market Value.


A few quick points: It is still in the interests of the bourgeoisie to hire labour-aristocrats despite the fact that they perform unproductive tasks and receive more than the value of their labour and so cannot function as a source of surplus-value, because labour-aristocrats do serve an important role - they purchase goods produced in the periphery and thereby allow the bourgeoisie to realize surplus value generated through the exploitation of workers living in oppressed nations, and also use their influence in the labour movement to limit the struggles of people who are exploited (i.e. the proletariat) and thus maintain the stability of capitalism. The absence of a labour aristocracy in the periphery means that revolution is most likely to break out in an oppressed nation and this has certainly been the case historically as almost all major revolutionary struggles during the course of this century have occurred outside the imperialist core - but this does not mean that the core possesses no revolutionary potential whatsoever, and does not require the deportation of labour-aristocrats after the core has been occupied by proletarians of the periphery, as advocated by some third-worldist organizations, because a successful socialist revolution in the periphery could lead to the re-proletarianization of people who are currently labour-aristocrats, or communists living in the core may be able to successfully separate the labour-aristocracy from the rest of the working population and thereby unleash the revolutionary potential of those who would still be classed as members of the proletariat.

Like I said before so called labor-aristocrat are not being employed because of class interests, its because of their market value, and the same goes for third world orkers.

Labor Aristocrats in my mind (I don't think there is such thing as labor aristocrats), don't need to be re-proletarianized, the same way that third world workers don't need to be westernized, all that is needed is for communists to help them, help themselves, in whatever class struggle endevor they have, and to encourage it.

BTW, if your going to blame first world workers for the actions of their governmentss you ahve to blame third world workers for the actions of theres (assuming its a representative government which most are).

[Chapter 24]

I am of the thought that even though a labor aristocracy exists to a certain extent, that people living in imperialist countries do better economically due to the subjugation of third-worlders under imperialism, there should still be active socialist organizations in these countries. In fact, that being said, I think that it's for this reason of their being a labor aristocracy in the First World that it should be encouraged as a place of revolutionary activity, in order to educate them of the living conditions of an average Third Worlder and how it relates to capitalism. The First World should definitely not be disregarded as a place of activity, and we should remember as socialists that the capitalist system is forced to spread out to other countries, regardless of the brutal exploitation that it imposes on these countries.

[RGacky3]

I am of the thought that even though a labor aristocracy exists to a certain extent, that people living in imperialist countries do better economically due to the subjugation of third-worlders under imperialism, there should still be active socialist organizations in these countries. In fact, that being said, I think that it's for this reason of their being a labor aristocracy in the First World that it should be encouraged as a place of revolutionary activity, in order to educate them of the living conditions of an average Third Worlder and how it relates to capitalism. The First World should definitely not be disregarded as a place of activity, and we should remember as socialists that the capitalist system is forced to spread out to other countries, regardless of the brutal exploitation that it imposes on these countries.

I 100% Agree with you, other than that there should be a division of a labor aristocracy, that we should even use that distinction. That splits up workers, that has connotations to it, it almost puts blame on the first world worker, simply because they happend to be better off because of past class struggle and circumstances, and there is nothing wrong with that, a worker is a worker is a worker, thats what solidarity is all about, and solidarity is what any socialist revolution is based on.

[BobKKKindle$]

Like I said before so called labor-aristocrat are not being employed because of class interests, its because of their market value, and the same goes for third world orkers"Market value" is not a term which appears in any dictionary of Marxist terminology. Marxists understand all commodities including labour in terms of use value and exchange value. You need to explain what you mean when you assert that "market value" is distinct from the class interests of the bourgeoisie.

It is an obvious fact that capitalists do not hire people just because they can be used as a source of surplus value - managers are currently payed large sums of money and are also rewarded with other benefits such as stock options and health insurance but because they are not a direct part of the production process they are incapable of adding any value to products, i.e. they do not perform productive labour and so do not produce surplus value. Instead, managers are hired to make decisions on behalf of the capitalist and maintain the rate of exploitation by organizing the workplace in the most efficient way possible and punishing workers who attempt to challenge the power of the capitalist by demanding improved conditions or forming a union - in other words, they perform useful labour from the viewpoint of the capitalist and by doing so create conditions which allow for the accumulation of capital in the long-term. Technically, managers have the same relationship to the means of production as an assembly-line worker - they derive most of their income from selling their labour power to a member of the bourgeoisie in exchange for which they are given a wage sufficient to support their dependents and renew their individual ability to work after the end of each working day. But because managers are payed a vastly higher wage than assembly-line workers (necessarily supported through the exploitation of these workers since managers are incapable of being exploited) it would be absurd to suggest that communists should encourage solidarity between assembly-line workers and managers, because the interests of managers are the same as those of the bourgeoisie and thus are opposed to the class interests of the proletariat.

A similar set of arguments is applicable in the case of labour-aristocrats. The labour-aristocracy is a privileged stratum comprised of those who have been given a share of superprofits generated through the exploitation of workers in the periphery and so are effectively "bought off" by the bourgeoisie, lacking any revolutionary potential and willing to defend imperialism against revolutionary movements. The concept of a stratum should be emphasized here: arguing that a labour-aristocracy exists is not the same as saying that there are no workers in the core or that the populations of imperialist states can be held accountable for the crimes of their respective governments. The labour-aristocracy does not serve as a source of surplus value but still performs a set of useful functions for the bourgeoisie as mentioned above: as a market for goods produced in the periphery and as the bureaucratic leaders of the labour movement. These functions, as in the case of managers, are useful insofar as they allow the bourgeoisie to realize surplus value, create a support base for imperialism, and obstruct the struggles of the proletariat - all of these functions serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie and allow for the accumulation of capital in the long-term. A key task facing communists in the core is to break the ideological and organizational links between the labour-aristocracy and the proletariat because a failure to expose the divergent interests of these two groups will allow labour-aristocrats to undermine the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, and this is why principled communists refuse to issue the opportunist and ignorant demand for unity between labour-aristocrats and the proletariat.

[RGacky3]

"Market value" is not a term which appears in any dictionary of Marxist terminology. Marxists understand all commodities including labour in terms of use value and exchange value. You need to explain what you mean when you assert that "market value" is distinct from the class interests of the bourgeoisie.

So what if it does'nt appear in Marxist terminology, I would hope that my leninist friends were not so dogmatic they only considered concepts that marx came up with.

What I mean by market value is the price you can get for a service or product in the Capitalist Market place, That Value is the only value which Capitalists are interested in, they are not interested in Labor Value or real value, and because of that if we are going to say that Capitalists employ so called "labor aristocrats" not at their value, we must use the value that they care about, the Market Value.

or example, take advertising, Avertising has no real value at all, only market value, as it props up other products which ahve real value, people in Advertising may not create any real value, but they do create Market value, which si all Capitalist care about

I don't assert that Market value is distinct from class Interest, because the Capitalist class interest is to Make money, which means, make market value.


It is an obvious fact that capitalists do not hire people just because they can be used as a source of surplus value - managers are currently payed large sums of money and are also rewarded with other benefits such as stock options and health insurance but because they are not a direct part of the production process they are incapable of adding any value to products, i.e. they do not perform productive labour and so do not produce surplus value. Instead, managers are hired to make decisions on behalf of the capitalist and maintain the rate of exploitation by organizing the workplace in the most efficient way possible and punishing workers who attempt to challenge the power of the capitalist by demanding improved conditions or forming a union - in other words, they perform useful labour from the viewpoint of the capitalist and by doing so create conditions which allow for the accumulation of capital in the long-term. Technically, managers have the same relationship to the means of production as an assembly-line worker - they derive most of their income from selling their labour power to a member of the bourgeoisie in exchange for which they are given a wage sufficient to support their dependents and renew their individual ability to work after the end of each working day. But because managers are payed a vastly higher wage than assembly-line workers (necessarily supported through the exploitation of these workers since managers are incapable of being exploited) it would be absurd to suggest that communists should encourage solidarity between assembly-line workers and managers, because the interests of managers are the same as those of the bourgeoisie and thus are opposed to the class interests of the proletariat.


A worker, by definition (thats most people accept) is someone without the power to hire and fire, and who sells his labor for a wage. What his role is in the company (other than hiring and firing) is not so relevant when it comes to calssifying him.

Managers are paid more than Workers for many reasons, one of which may be class interests, but also may be that managers require a higher pay through the market.

Now when you talk about "interests" its not black and white, does a manager gain from a worker takeover? Yes he does, because that would probably mean more money in his pocket. Also a Manager would have a broad interest of living in a free and equal society.

Now I'm nto saying that Management should always be included in worker struggles (most of them would'nt want to be), but niether should they be looked apon as "the enemy".


The labour-aristocracy is a privileged stratum comprised of those who have been given a share of superprofits generated through the exploitation of workers in the periphery and so are effectively "bought off" by the bourgeoisie, lacking any revolutionary potential and willing to defend imperialism against revolutionary movements.

That goes against empirical evidence, the United States has one of the most active anti-war movements in the world. They are not "bought off", Capitalists do not "buy off," they compete in the Market place. Their being given a share of the superprofits, or whatever you want to call them, is'nt being done for class reasons perse, its being done because thats where the market is, if you sell for cheap, you get more of the market.

I think your twisting Capitalism backwards, putting everything on class dynamics and forgetting the profit motive and the market. Remember the Capitalist class competes with one another, so local Capitalists are making money fomr their domestic workers, big time Capitalists are doing that and exploiting overseas, but ultimatly, they both must make a profit, and the way Capitalism is set up, if they are held by shareholders, they have to make MORE of a proft than the next guy. This is where imperialism comes in, and this is where superprofits come in.

The rest of your argument does'nt take into account the western workers market value, take my advertising example.


A key task facing communists in the core is to break the ideological and organizational links between the labour-aristocracy and the proletariat because a failure to expose the divergent interests of these two groups will allow labour-aristocrats to undermine the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, and this is why principled communists refuse to assie the opportunist and ignorant demand for unity between labour-aristocrats and the proletariat.

Labor Aristocrats and proletariats are both being exploited, whether or not they create real value AND market value or only market value is irrelivent to the Capitalist and should be to the communist, because we are worried about ending class distinctions and power structures. Being sold to IS not being bought off, being sold too is making money, them hireing them at a higher wage is not a conscious descision by the bourgeoisie, they don't doing willingly, they do it, because they have too, because of many factors, one big one being decades of class struggle.

But all of this has to be understood in the context of Market Value rather than Real Value.

[BobKKKindle$]

..is the only value which Capitalists are interested in, they are not interested in Labor Value or real valueI don't have time to respond to all of your crass mistakes at the moment, but this is empirically wrong. The bourgeoisie is aware of its long-term interests and is even willing to forgo immediate profit (or "market value") to ensure that these interests are secured and the bourgeoisie will not become politically or economically vulnerable at some point in the future. For example, in Britain, the 1847 Mines Act prevented women and children from working in the mines and by that time the 1833 Factory Act had already banned children below the age of nine working in factories - both of these acts of legislation as well as subsequent acts with the same effect were based on the class-interests of the bourgeoisie, as individual capitalists were becoming aware of the fact that if the employment of these groups was allowed to continue, the resulting impact on the health of the laborers and the decline in fertility would deprive capitalists of a productive labour force in the future - thereby denying these capitalists the ability to accumulate capital and compete with the capitalists of other countries. You even admitted this in one of our previous discussions so in addition to being wrong, you are also inconsistent. It should be emphasized that these reforms and indeed many reforms which have been made since the industrial revolution such as the introduction of the welfare state in 1945 and the enactment of minimum wage legislation have involved an immediate cutback on the profits of the bourgeoisie - this further shows that the bourgeoisie is always conscious of its long-term interests as a class. Paying workers more than the value of their labour (thereby negating their status as workers and turning them into labour-arisotcrats) is also intended to achieve a long-term objective - securing the political dominance of the bourgeoisie in the age of imperialism.


Now I'm nto saying that Management should always be included in worker struggles (most of them would'nt want to be), but niether should they be looked apon as "the enemy".So when the Russian workers at the Putilov steelworks and many other factories placed their respective managers in wheelbarrows and dumped them in the nearest river so they could take over the management of factories themselves, were they being disloyal to their class comrades? Should Nike workers in Vietnam call for solidarity with Nike CEOs? This is yet further evidence of your ignorance - the fact that managers are given the task of maintaining exploitation and are payed such vastly higher wages means that they can never have the same class interests of the proletariat unless the proletariat agrees to retain a hierarchical division of labour and enormous wage differentiations after a socialist revolution - something that would never happen in reality.

[RGacky3]

he bourgeoisie is aware of its long-term interests and is even willing to forgo immediate profit (or "market value") to ensure that these interests are secured and the bourgeoisie will not become politically or economically vulnerable at some point in the future.

Market value does'nt mean immediate profit, it means montary profit from the market, I've explained it before, and it can be very long term, Advertising, diamonds, all of these things use value or real value are different from the market value, which are long term. (If I buy a diamond, chances are I'm not going to worry about it loosing value.)


Britain, the 1847 Mines Act prevented women and children from working in the mines and by that time the 1833 Factory Act had already banned children below the age of nine working in factories - both of these acts of legislation as well as subsequent acts with the same effect were based on the class-interests of the bourgeoisie, as individual capitalists were becoming aware of the fact that if the employment of these groups was allowed to continue, the resulting impact on the health of the laborers and the decline in fertility would deprive capitalists of a productive labour force in the future - thereby denying these capitalists the ability to accumulate capital and compete with the capitalists of other countries.

That was the State, not the Capitalist. It was also based on the backdroo off class strugle. The State (although almost always working in the Capitalists Interest) Has more of the ability to think long term.

Also what evidence do you have, that, THAT was the intention of the law.

The so-called labor Aristocracy was not really made by the State (the few reletively unenforced laws that exist were passed with a lot of public/class struggle pressure). It was made by the market place and class struggle.

If it WAS an actual Capitalist conspiracy (it would be a conspiracy if Capitalists were working for something more than their own [individually not as a class] profit and power), for the labor aristocracy to exist it would require that type of Conspiracy.


You even admitted this in one of our previous discussions so in addition to being wrong, you are also inconsistent. It should be emphasized that these reforms and indeed many reforms which have been made since the industrial revolution such as the introduction of the welfare state in 1945 and the enactment of minimum wage legislation have involved an immediate cutback on the profits of the bourgeoisie - this further shows that the bourgeoisie is always conscious of its long-term interests as a class.

What I said was that the State passed these type of laws to prevent the Collapse of Capitalism due to unrest and revolution and the such, not out of the goodness of their heart. The Capitalists accepted that because they realised what the other option was, most of them were already afriad of class struggle.

The Capitalists and State did'nt do this because they were 'buying off' the workers, they did it because they were forced too.


Paying workers more than the value of their labour (thereby negating their status as workers and turning them into labour-arisotcrats) is also intended to achieve a long-term objective - securing the political dominance of the bourgeoisie in the age of imperialism.


Lik I said before,they are not being payed more than their value, because their companies (many times 100% demostic) make a lot of profit. Its market Value that counts.


So when the Russian workers at the Putilov steelworks and many other factories placed their respective managers in wheelbarrows and dumped them in the nearest river so they could take over the management of factories themselves, were they being disloyal to their class comrades?

Your missreading what I said, its not black and white, its not Worker or enemy. But about that, no one has a duty to be loyal to anyone, but they must respect the rights of everyone, thats what a free and equal society is all about.

If the managers (not owners) Actually were trying to physically stop the workers then yeah, take the appropriate responce. If they were doing it just as a crime of passion, revenge, then no, they are being disloyal to principles of humanity.


Should Nike workers in Vietnam call for solidarity with Nike CEOs? This is yet further evidence of your ignorance - the fact that managers are given the task of maintaining exploitation and are payed such vastly higher wages means that they can never have the same class interests of the proletariat unless the proletariat agrees to retain a hierarchical division of labour and enormous wage differentiations after a socialist revolution - something that would never happen in reality.

Like I said before, I did'nt say they are all the same, there are different types of Managers, and things are not black and white. This is a problem that Leninists have, they paint everything as black and white, comrade or enemy, everything is 100% determined by class, other factors be damned. This mentality is one reason many people that don't need to die, die in Leninist revolutions and governments.

The concept of a Labor Aristocracy is just one more way to unjustly paint a broad group as an 'enemy' based on shaky reasoning based on assumed intentions, and twisted concepts that don't have a basis in reality.

Our job as Communists is to liberate everyone.

[BobKKKindle$]

Market value does'nt mean immediate profit, it means montary profit from the market, I've explained it before, and it can be very long termIf "market value" also includes the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie, how is it any different from the standard concept of class interest, and how does it show that the bourgeoisie would never be willing create a labour-aristocracy by sharing superprofits generated through imperialism? The concept of "market value" is something you have made up with no reference to Marx's analysis of capitalism to hide the real issue under discussion here, and you have completely failed to recognize that imperialism does allow the bourgeoisie to "buy-off" a section of the proletariat, and it is in the class interest of the bourgeoisie to do so, because the process of "buying-off" (i.e. the creation of a labour-aristocracy) creates conditions for the accumulation of capital in the long-term by ensuring the political supremacy of the bourgeoisie and establishing an internal market for goods produced in the periphery - both of which must exist in order to realize profit and thereby accumulate capital. The experience of the proletariat during the age of imperialism (i.e. the final stage of capitalism) proves this, as almost all major struggles against capitalism have occurred in the periphery and the core has witnessed the emergence of reformist parties which derive their strength from the support of the labour-aristocracy and are committed to supporting the privileges of labour-aristocrats by maintaining the imperialist exploitation of the periphery.


That was the State, not the Capitalist. It was also based on the backdroo off class strugle. The State (although almost always working in the Capitalists Interest) Has more of the ability to think long term.The reforms mentioned in my previous post were often not supported by the struggles of the proletariat, as families were dependent on the wages earned by women and children to maintain family members who unable to work either because they were too old or because they were suffering from illness. It was only later that employers raised the wages of male workers to compensate for the lost income, and this signaled the introduction of the "family wage", sufficient to cover the expenses of a family and thereby allow women to perform domestic tasks such as caring for infants and preparing meals for other members of the family unit instead of working outside the home. The purpose of this argument was to show that the bourgeoisie is not concerned solely with immediate profit but is also aware of its long-term class interests, often by making use of class-based organizations such as employer associations and political parties, and is capable of acting through the state to ensure that these interests are protected.


Also what evidence do you have, that, THAT was the intention of the law.The analysis described above is taken from Lindsey German's 'Sex, Class, and Socialism'. The most important component of the Marxist theory of the state is the recognition that all states are apparatuses of class oppression (i.e. institutions designed to maintain the position of the ruling class and defeat class enemies) and so it naturally follows that laws enacted by a bourgeois state must reflect or at least not be opposed to the class interests of the bourgeoisie - this was certainly the case when the reforms mentioned above were enacted because they did not result from class struggle and the proletariat had not yet been given the vote and so was unable to make its interests felt through the electoral system. If you reject the Marxist conception and argue that the bourgeois state is capable of expressing the interests of the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie then you are implicitly agreeing with the misguided conception put forward by reformists - that the state is a neutral entity which represents the interests of society as a whole and is not bound to the ruling class.


Lik I said before,they are not being payed more than their value, because their companies (many times 100% demostic) make a lot of profit. Its market Value that counts.Lenin recognized that the epoch of imperialism exhibits the emergence of powerful monopoly corporations which encompass multiple economic sectors and combine both industrial production and banking to form finance capital - these corporations do not limit their operations to the country in which they are based but export capital overseas where they can obtain a higher rate of profit by taking advantage of vulnerable workers and the absence of regulations. In other words, during the epoch of imperialism almost all economic activity is conducted by multinational firms, i.e. firms which product and sell commodities in more than one country, and so you have mischaracterized the condition of contemporary capitalism by implying that there are still many firms which are solely "domestic". This is important for the purpose of the discussion because superprofits (i.e. profits above the average rate of profit) are only possible during the epoch of imperialism and so the labour-aristocracy is a phenomenon specific to this epoch, and the fact that the labour-aristocracy is dependent on imperialism for its own existence creates an objective interest in defending imperialism (and consequently, capitalism, given that imperialism is simply a stage in the historical development of capitalism) against revolution.


Like I said before, I did'nt say they are all the same, there are different types of Managers, and things are not black and whiteMarxists are not interested in the behavior of isolated individuals, but seek to examine the interests of classes, and especially whether the interests of a given class are opposed to the interests of the proletariat. It may be the case that individual managers support the proletariat, but Marx also acknowledged that members of the bourgeoisie may choose to reject their class origins and take the side of the revolution during a period of political upheaval - this does not negate the fact that the interests of the bourgeoisie as a class are diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat. Your error stems in part from the fact that you have adopted a simplistic definition of the proletariat - although proletarians do sell their labour power in exchange for a wage this alone it not an adequate definition as it would also include groups which are objectively opposed to the proletariat including managers as well as voluntary members of the state apparatus (i.e. the police and armed services) who are given the task of violently suppressing political dissidents and radical movements. Marxists should also recognize that only those who are payed less than the value of their labour (i.e. are exploited) may be considered members of the proletariat, and under this definition we can correctly classify the labour-aristocracy as part of the petty-bourgeoisie, not the proletariat, given that the definition of a labour-aristocrat is someone who is given a share of superprofits and consequently payed more than the value of their labour.

Incidentally, you appear to be utterly inconsistent on the issue of whether the labour-aristocracy actually exists. At some points in this discussion you have asserted that labour-aristocrats should unify with workers on the basis that both groups are exploited (this makes no sense, as labour-aristocrats are by definition people who are not exploited and if they did suffer exploitation they would be part of the proletariat) whereas elsewhere you have asserted that the labour-aristocracy does not exist. This suggests that you do not understand what the labour-aristocracy actually is.


Our job as Communists is to liberate everyone.This is a liberal conception of communism which fails to convey the fact that communism is based on the class interests of the proletariat and other exploited groups, and the victory of the proletariat necessarily involves the disempowerment and oppression of those who have benefited from capitalism, including the bourgeoisie and the labour-aristocracy.

[RGacky3]

If "market value" also includes the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie, how is it any different from the standard concept of class interest, and how does it show that the bourgeoisie would never be willing create a labour-aristocracy by sharing superprofits generated through imperialism? The concept of "market value" is something you have made up with no reference to Marx's analysis of capitalism to hide the real issue under discussion here,

Market Value has nothing to do with class interest, its the dollar amount value that the Market assigns to goods and services and the such.

Its plain and simple, stop being dogmatic only looking at things in terms of class interest and the such.


The purpose of this argument was to show that the bourgeoisie is not concerned solely with immediate profit but is also aware of its long-term class interests, often by making use of class-based organizations such as employer associations and political parties, and is capable of acting through the state to ensure that these interests are protected.


I don't disagree, but teh Capitalist can't do things that will make them loose profit, unless the rest of the Capitalists are doing it (thats where the state acomes in). You ahve to Look at Capitalists not only as a 'class' but also as people competeing with one another for profit.


If you reject the Marxist conception and argue that the bourgeois state is capable of expressing the interests of the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie then you are implicitly agreeing with the misguided conception put forward by reformists - that the state is a neutral entity which represents the interests of society as a whole and is not bound to the ruling class.


I don't regect marxist analysis, but I would venture to say that its not the only type of Analysis that is valid, and looking at it from all angles will give you and me a better view.

What I am saying is that class interests are not black and white, I'm not saying the State is primarily concerned with the interests of the ruling class, and is bound to it.


In other words, during the epoch of imperialism almost all economic activity is conducted by multinational firms, i.e. firms which product and sell commodities in more than one country, and so you have mischaracterized the condition of contemporary capitalism by implying that there are still many firms which are solely "domestic". This is important for the purpose of the discussion because superprofits (i.e. profits above the average rate of profit) are only possible during the epoch of imperialism and so the labour-aristocracy is a phenomenon specific to this epoch, and the fact that the labour-aristocracy is dependent on imperialism for its own existence creates an objective interest in defending imperialism (and consequently, capitalism, given that imperialism is simply a stage in the historical development of capitalism) against revolution.


A large portion of economic activity IS conducted my multinational firms, I agree, as far as money and Capital being moved, however, a large number of firms are domestic, and a large number of workers work for domestic only firms.

The American worker MAY have a short term interest in maintaining imperialism (although this is yet to be proven too me, that they are being payed more than their value), but ultimately its interest in overturning Capitalism and taking control of their workplace is still there and still a strong incentive.

Also if you were right about the so called labor aristocracy having interest in Capitalism and Imperialism, the Government and Corporate elite are wasting tons and tons of money on propeganda, and tons and tons of money on union busting.

So far all you've shown is that it is theoretically POSSIBLE, for the Capitalists to pay their first world workers more than their value, IF they are multinationals, and IF the other corporations do it too (which would require state intervention), but the fact is, they don't.


Marxists are not interested in the behavior of isolated individuals, but seek to examine the interests of classes, and especially whether the interests of a given class are opposed to the interests of the proletariat.

Well thats many Marxists get things wrong, because they are dogmatic and refuse to look at things from different angles. You have to look at the interests of the class in context of the interests of the individual otherwise your missing a lot.


It may be the case that individual managers support the proletariat, but Marx also acknowledged that members of the bourgeoisie may choose to reject their class origins and take the side of the revolution during a period of political upheaval - this does not negate the fact that the interests of the bourgeoisie as a class are diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat.

I don't consider managers to be bourgeoisie, because they don't have any ultimate control of the means of production. This is why things should be looked at more carefully, rather than making sweeping blanked statements.


this does not negate the fact that the interests of the bourgeoisie as a class are diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat. Your error stems in part from the fact that you have adopted a simplistic definition of the proletariat - although proletarians do sell their labour power in exchange for a wage this alone it not an adequate definition as it would also include groups which are objectively opposed to the proletariat including managers as well as voluntary members of the state apparatus (i.e. the police and armed services) who are given the task of violently suppressing political dissidents and radical movements.

Your wrong here in the sense that you require proletariats to have some type of loyalty to their class (which transfers to loyalty to the party). I don't ask loyalty from any one too anyone, I expect everyone to do whats best for them. Being part of a class IS NOT being somehow inherently tied in together, it does NOT mean that your interests are all the same all the time. Class has to with your relationship to the means of production, stop trying to change it to try and turn it into a comrade-enemy distinction.


Marxists should also recognize that only those who are payed less than the value of their labour

Well, in the first world too, workers are payed less than what the fruit of their world is sold for by the Capitalists, sooo, they are not being payed less. For example, I'm a drafter, I'm payed per hour from 1/4 to 1/3 of what my companies clients charge for my work per hour (directly), I live in the first world. I am not distinct case, this is the case for most first world workers, actually, all of them.



At some points in this discussion you have asserted that labour-aristocrats should unify with workers on the basis that both groups are exploited (this makes no sense, as labour-aristocrats are by definition people who are not exploited and if they did suffer exploitation they would be part of the proletariat) whereas elsewhere you have asserted that the labour-aristocracy does not exist. This suggests that you do not understand what the labour-aristocracy actually is.


When I said labor aristocrats, I'm talking about those whome you calle labor aristocrats, I don't believe there is such a thing, I use the term for discussion purpose.


This is a liberal conception of communism which fails to convey the fact that communism is based on the class interests of the proletariat and other exploited groups, and the victory of the proletariat necessarily involves the disempowerment and oppression of those who have benefited from capitalism, including the bourgeoisie and the labour-aristocracy.

I agree (disempowerment of the Capitalist over the worker).

Now Bobkindles, I have had a couple debates with you, and your very articulate and I enjoy them, however, I think it might help for you to look at things from other angles rather than ONLY the marxist-leninist one.