The labour aristocracy and working class politics

[peaccenicked]

http://www.dsp.org.au/links/node/12

Because of recent events here with so-called maoists,cultists by the look of things
they hit a raw nerve, I think, and I believe it is probably good to look at the issues involved more thoroughly and historically. The above link attempts to do this.

The thing that is apparent to me is that the Labour aristocracy is the bureaucratic layer, of the State machine that blocks at every sign of independent working class movement the development therefore of communist politics, which is precisely the movement of the working class as a class for itself.

What seems a shame, is the over reaction of marginalised, and isolated, leftists who would rather protect themselves in a cult than tackle the opportunist politics
of this layer of bureaucracy by exposing them in real terms , rather than denying the class struggle as winning both the propaganda war, and building a pivot or pivots where communist politics can be maintained and developed in tandem with
the revolutionary process with all its ebbs and flows, setbacks, and even reactionary periods.
We have to do away with the official optimism of leftist bureaucrats as well and build real confidence in the workers movement by clarifying the nature of the enemy, especially that which traditionally goes by the name of opportunism.

[Joe AZ]

I just joined so I must have missed the controversy with the Maoists - however I have been embroiled in similar debates. Some comrades of mine once debated a member of the Maoist International Movement (MIM) over whether or not the US even had a "white working class".

I can't deny that MIM makes a number of valid points regarding the relationship between first world workers/consumers and third world workers. But the assumption is that US workers, or white workers at any rate, would oppose revolutionary movements here and in the third world because it would endanger their standard of living. This makes the entire first world working class, in their eyes, a labor aristocracy.

I think this is a narrow understanding of how and why revolutions unfold, and how revolutionary consciousness is formed. The question is not so much whether or not FW workers will ever decide it is in their interests to sacrifice living standards for revolutionary progress, but whether or not the contradictions of capitalist society will reach a revolutionary boiling point there.

MIM can't help but resort to some of the same arguments that right-wing economists employ to prove that everything is "just fine" in the US. The paltry statistic of rising median income is rolled out to prove that not only have things gotten better for US workers, but are better than they have ever been.

I would hope that a Marxist approach would take more decisive and relevant factors into account, including the historical shift in the strategic orientation of the ruling class. I think any analysis of the prospects for revolution must begin with the conception of the bourgeois state, in any capitalist country, as the executive committee for the direction of the affairs of the bourgeoisie. The historical record can leave no doubt that the last 30 or so years have seen a renewed ruling class offensive against all of the gains of previous epochs, as well as the various mechanisms of economic and political compromise initiated by FW countries. Rising income aside, the economic hits to the working class in the form of wage and benefit reductions, reduced social spending, elimination of various programs, attempts to revoke certain labor laws; in the end they amount to a bourgeois "housecleaning", what any good board of directions must undertake in an enterprise displaying falling profits.

Now is not the time, of course, to explain in detail the decline of the rate of profit, but even without the technical schematic the political orientation of the ruling class from Washington to Berlin and beyond has changed in such a way as to make this decline self-evident. The power of the Marxist analysis is not in pointing out the obvious but in revealing the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production itself and demonstrating their most likely political and social ramifications, or in this case to provide an explanation and a historical account of the political situation.

The question at this point becomes, what must the inevitable response of the working class to this changing situation become? The MIM premise that everything is fine and will continue to be fine clearly has no foundation in the objective facts, considered in all aspects of development. The material basis for the so-called "labor aristocracy", when that term is used to cover practically the entire North American working class, is debt and credit. Those that have not done so should read Rosa Luxemburgs section on the role of credit in "Reform or Revolution" (or is it Revolution or Reform? I always get it mixed up). They should also familiarize themselves with the causes of the latest stock market woes, which are directly related to credit problems.

In the final analysis all arguments that seek to discount the US or FW working class in general begin with false assumptions about the stability and health of the global economy and particular the economies of the FW, about the capacity of the global bourgeoisie to manage economic crises. Does a new wave of Keyensianism sound plausible to anyone at this point? Keyensianism and the whole welfare-state project in general was premised on a rise in the rate of profit; but the rise in the rate of profit was premised upon increased productivity and increased profit per worker. I think historically speaking, especially with the rise of the service sector as the dominant sector of the economy, the potental for a renewed economic boom and rising profit rates has eclipsed - there is nowhere to go but down.

[syndicat]

you should ask what inferences that MIM would make from their assumptions. the worst sort of nihilism and despair follow from those premises. there would certainly be no reason to support efforts to develop mass organizations and movements of struggle in working class communities in the USA on their theory.

in reality, the rate of exploitation of the working class in the USA has increased over the past 30 years to an unprecedented extent. the real wage of non-supervisorial workers has fallen by more than 14% since 1973, which is the highest and longest decline in the history of the USA. medical coverage is disappearing. there are severe housing crises in many urban areas. US workers now work the longest average workweek of any first world country. the 40 hour work week is a thing of the past. the working class now pays a higher percentage of the taxes to sustain the state than before. welfare benefits are a thing of the past. and on and on.

MIM's theory is that American workers gain from the profiteering of American capitalists in the Third World. why would the capitalists share their booty with workers here? since in fact the capitalists have been waging a massive assault on the working class, this shows that in fact they will do just the opposite when they have the chance: turn up the screws on the US workers.

moreover only a small fraction of the profits of American capitalists come from the labor of 3rd world workers. the vast majority of their investment is in the USA and other first world countries.

the reason that American workers have a commonality of interest with 3rd world workers is that the capitalists in the USA are using their access to the 3rd World as cheap labor sources, as a battering ram to force down wages and the standard of living in the USA and other first world countries. this is why manufacturing is moved to Mexico or south China or wherever. it is in the interests of US workers to have movements in the 3rd world that can raise the bargaining power of workers in those countries, that can reduce the ability of capitalists to exploit them. if there were a revolution that took their labor out of the world capitalist labor market, all the better. if they can make gains and enhance their position, that means there is less competition from 3rd world workers to force down wages and living standards in the USA.

[BobKKKindle$]

MIM's theory is that American workers gain from the profiteering of American capitalists in the Third World. why would the capitalists share their booty with workers here

They do not 'share' as such - however, workers in developed countries do benefit, primarily through access to less expensive consumer goods, which is equivalent to an increase in real income, as workers are able to purchase a greater quantity of goods even though their nominal pay remains constant.

I do of course oppose the Maoist view that revolution will not occur in developed countries - however, I would contend that revolutionary consciousness in developed countries arises primarily as a result of alienation and boredom, because in these countries, material hardship is not a pressing concern relative to developing countries in which people are unable to access the necessities required to sustain a basic level of wellbeing (absolute poverty). This is not necessarily a bad thing and is also not something that will continue forever with absolute certainity - as previous posters pointed out, the current living standards and patters of expenditure in the United States are unsustainable and as such the nature and origins of revolutionary consciousness may change.

[Joe AZ]

you should ask what inferences that MIM would make from their assumptions. the worst sort of nihilism and despair follow from those premises. there would certainly be no reason to support efforts to develop mass organizations and movements of struggle in working class communities in the USA on their theory.

Well, they do believe that thrid world revolutions are possible, and that it will be a wave of third world revolutionaries that invade and conquer the US, herding the surviors into re-education camps. The theory is called "One Big Gulag". Some MIM members might try to deny it but me and some comrades have seen it on their forums. It might just be the musings of one of their members but their supporter on our forum didn't seem to have a problem with it.

To the previous poster,

Yes, alienation and boredom do lead many to revolutionary, or pseudo-revolutionary positions - I think that can be dangerous though. The workers are alienated from their product but they are not all socially alienated in the way the typical brooding intellectual is. I mean lets face it, the latter broods because he or she looks around and sees a decadent culture full of slobs and nitwits that passively accept the tyranny of state and corporation, media and official education. The complaints of the workers are a little more tangible - unable to pay the bills, job security threatened, unemployment, etc. In honesty I am a little of both.

Of course these are not mutually exclusive: I have the luxury of both being disgusted with our culture, and being unable to pay the bills. When I first became a socialist I lived with my parents and my material needs were satisifed. The longer I live in my own, the more my socialism becomes more relevant to my everyday life experience, whether it is outrageous medical bills, rent hikes (just got hit with a 100 dollar hike&#33, finding decent employment, etc.

That is why it is fallacious for MIM or anyone else to point to disparities in living standards. Yes, the poorest Americans, technically, have a higher standard of living than the poorest Chinese or African or what have you. But as the economic situation worsens, the struggle for daily existence sharpens. Does it really matter if living standards are falling from a very high level? Isn't the fact that they are falling, and rather rapidly from the look of it, enough? I think it is. The only thing propping me up right now is a web of debt, and the same goes for practically everyone I know.

[syndicat]

me: "MIM's theory is that American workers gain from the profiteering of American capitalists in the Third World. why would the capitalists share their booty with workers here"

They do not 'share' as such - however, workers in developed countries do benefit, primarily through access to less expensive consumer goods, which is equivalent to an increase in real income, as workers are able to purchase a greater quantity of goods even though their nominal pay remains constant.

there is a little problem with your theory: prices have gone up, not down, since the '70s, and in particular since the boom in foreign investment in the '90s. but wages have not gone up.

you're buying into one of the arguments used by mainstream bourgeois economists for neo-liberalism. what lowering labor costs actually has done is enable the capitalists to rake in higher profits. profits since the '90s have been at historic highs. the highest in the history of the USA, they say. moreover, i pointed out that the decline in wages in the USA since the '70s is not merely a nominal decline in the money amount of the wage but a real decline, taking account of changes in the value of money. a real decline means that people are able to acquire fewer consumption goods. this is expressed for example in the spreading and worsening housing crisis in urban areas of the USA, especially on the coasts, but in some locations in the center and south where growth has taken place, and inflows of capital have driven speculative inflation.

[peaccenicked]

Not that I mind that much but this thread is moving towards what constitutes the US
working class, this is also touching on poverty. These topics are certainly relevant but politically class position is more important than class status. An unemployed worker can adopt the political position or view point of a labour aristocrat.

Gramsci talks of wars of position, and manoeuvre. The ground we make on welfare belongs to manoeuvre for instance, ground we make as an independent movement belongs to position.(a shift in position)
A labour aristocrat is a hack, left or right who holds back the movement from development,and is satisfied with routine recruitment campaigns, and blocks anything that could possibly amount to bad press.

This is not to say that the movement wants bad press, but when it enfeebles the movement not to tell the truth, or question received wisdom, or back up unfairly sacked comrades etc. It is not a movement at all.

This is the cutting edge of class conflict at the moment, and it is also generally at the margins of society.

This is subjective nature of the reactionary period we are living in, which is also contradicted by the objective and social need for a (democratic)rationally planned society. In my opinion an eruption will occur and most of the 'official' left will be caught spouting archaic world views, that will be a drag on the momentum of real working class movement.

As the Irish say.

[font=Optima]Tiocfaidh Ár Lá[/font]
English translation: Our day will come

pronounced: chucky are lah

[RedHal]

"MIM's theory is that American workers gain from the profiteering of American capitalists in the Third World. why would the capitalists share their booty with workers here"

you don't need a degree in economics to answer this. If 1st world capitalists were to pay them 3rd world rates or lay them off completely and relocate to the 3rd world. There will be a lot of pissed off ppl seeking radical change in the system. By paying 1st world workers inflated rates, they stay content and are able to purchase the cheap goods manufactured from the super-exploited 3rd world workers. So the cappies win by "buying off" 1st world workers and profiting from cheap 3rd world labour and resources. Stabitlity is maintained, cappies can sleep comfortably in thier palatial mansions without fear of losing their wealth and power.

Does it really matter if living standards are falling from a very high level? Isn't the fact that they are falling, and rather rapidly from the look of it, enough?

tell that to the sweat shop workers, I'm sure they'll feel sorry for those 1st world workers that don't have that extra $50 to go catch a ball game and buy a hotdog.