How did the Labor Aristocracy die out?

[heiss93]

The general consensus among Communists, is that Engels and Lenin were correct in their analysis of superprofits and labor aristocrats but that some time after World War I there ceased to be a labor aristocracy. When did this occur? And what were the causes?

The best answer I can muster is that the neo-colonialism post-1945 was not as capital intensive since direct occupation and administration was no longer necessary. In the globalist era of imperialism, there is no need to maintain a labor aristocracy. Also the inter-imperialist rivalry is far less sharp.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't know if it really died out. I think that capital has started to affect the whole Western working class instead of a certain privileged strata.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There never was one:

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

[Mister X]

I think there was a Labor aristocracy and there still is. There is a certain priviledged strata in the working class , especially the heads of unions. This union bureaucracy is composed of people who have nothing in common with the average worker. Ideology wise they are more moderate and they make a lot of concessions or they even sell us out to the ruling class. My union is kind of radical as I am part of the leadership but many other unions are working for the bosses and not the workers. Now there are a lot of other places where there is a labor aristocracy and it certainly hasn't died off. Imperialism is more intense then ever and especially in times of turmoil like these the bourgeoisie needs its lackeys in the workers movement. So Labor Aristocracy is on an upswing in some places while the standard of living of the mass of the workers is dropping rapidly.

[piet11111]

There never was one:

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

not even some of the union leaders ?

[gilhyle]

It is a simple fact that among people who earn their living by labour there are those who get paid more and those who get paid less. It would be quite strange if those differences did not influence political attitudes.

However, there was a change after WW1. Up until then, there was a strong difference between the unions of skilled workers and those of 'general' workers. After WW1 this difference began to erode and after WW2 the role of the skilled unions was very much reduced (in Europe we are talking here) as the social democratic movement ruled in much of Western Europe in alliance with the US against the USSR.

The distinct character of those skilled unions and their particularly conservative focus never disappeared. But the skills they organised became increasingly reundant.

What is striking in the period of globalisation is the ability of multinational capital to recruit what should have been the new labour aristocracy on a non-union basis. Thus the influece of the labour aristocracy on the labour movement is minimised...but this has little positive effect in the overall context of repeated defeats.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Piet:


not even some of the union leaders ?

There is a different analysis of this layer.

[piet11111]

Piet:



There is a different analysis of this layer.

please tell i would like to learn more :)