Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

How did the Labor Aristocracy die out?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 21 Dec 2008, 17:03
How did the Labor Aristocracy die out?
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.
Post 22 Dec 2008, 00:11
The labor aristocracy didn't die out. It's huge, at least in the US.
Post 23 Dec 2008, 19:00
It's huge in the North. It's connected with neocorporatism and the role of reformist unions as discipline units.
Post 23 Dec 2008, 19:14
1. Forgive me for being stupid and such, but what exactly is the labor aristocracy? Rich proletarians?

2. I'd already started to wonder when you, heiss, would finally post something of your own instead of showing us interesting text fragments.
Post 25 Dec 2008, 04:39
Ezekiel39 wrote:
The labour aristocracy didn't die out. It's huge, at least in the US.


That is what I thought as well.

Mabool wrote:
1. Forgive me for being stupid and such, but what exactly is the labour aristocracy? Rich proletarians?


They are workers who are wage slaves but don't live in utter poverty; therefore, they do not seek the overthrowing of the wage system. Rich proletarians, middle class, ect. are all similar titles.
Post 25 Dec 2008, 05:08
The answer to this question is one thing. Champagne Socialists...
Post 25 Dec 2008, 09:55
I thought it was those who controlled the unions and prevented them from being truly progressive.

This new definition is stupid.
Pat
Post 26 Dec 2008, 13:08
Isn't that supposed to be common as well?
Post 10 Jan 2009, 23:54
Here is the dictionary definition:

Labour Aristocracy, the relatively thin and usually highly skilled upper crust of the working class in imperialist countries which is bribed by the monopoly bourgeoisie with a share of the superprofits obtained through the heightened exploitation of the working people in their own countries and the ruthless exploitation of colonial and economically less developed peoples. It is a phenomenon of the stage of monopoly capitalism. The bribery takes various forms, such as higher wages for individual workers, improved living conditions for them, cozy jobs in the state administration, war industry enterprises, reactionary trade unions, cooperatives, and other organisations; shares of capitalist companies are sold to them at lower rates, etc. The labour aristocracy is the principal social support of the bourgeoisie and right-wing socialist parties and the salesmen of opportunism and reformism in the working-class movement. As Lenin pointed out, they are "the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 194). Being part of the working class, maintaining links with it and enjoying a measure of influence with the masses, the labour aristocracy poses a serious threat to the revolutionary movement in the capitalist world. The ruling classes of capitalist countries use workers of a bourgeois tint to fracture the unity of the working class, corrupt its consciousness, and weaken its positions. The harmful influence of the labour aristocracy is strongest in the working-class movement of the USA and Britain. The formation of this aristocracy is a feature of capitalism at its highest, imperialist stage of development. With the aggravation of the general crisis of capitalism, collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, growing class consciousness and organisational strength of the workers, and greater influence of the communist movement the labour aristocracy loses its grip on the masses.

http://www.leninist.biz/en/1985/DOPE397 ... ristocracy
Post 11 Jan 2009, 03:46
I would agree with heiss93's dictionary definition. Far from dying out in Britain or America, they are as strong as ever, and are the main obstacle to revolutionary consciousness among the working masses of those nations. They also exist in most European countries.
Post 11 Jan 2009, 16:59
Victor Perlo of the CPUSA, was the main economist to claim that the LA had died out. I since his main justification was globalization. According to Joe Sims however some Soviet texts actually claimed the entire US working class was LA.
http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ism-4.html
Labor Aristocracy. Postulated by Marx and Engels, a labor aristocracy arose in several developed capitalist countries bought off by their respective ruling classes to support the interests of capital. Used to explain right-wing trends in the labor movement. A phenomenon present in early capitalism, the stratum disappeared in the mid-20th century. The concept however persisted in both Soviet Marxist texts – one which postulated that the US working class as a whole constituted a labor aristocracy in relation to the rest of the world – and among independent Marxists and middle-class left groups, some of who argue that white male workers constitute a “labor aristocracy” in relation to the rest of the US working class. Wrong, divisive, and wrong again!
Post 11 Jan 2009, 23:36
Quote:
Victor Perlo of the CPUSA, was the main economist to claim that the LA had died out. I since his main justification was globalization. According to Joe Sims however some Soviet texts actually claimed the entire US working class was LA.

To claim that the entire American working class is a labour aristocracy is clearly wrong. However, there clearly is a (small) labour aristocracy in America and other developed capitalist societies. Globalisation will almost certainly destroy it in the near future through outsourcing of jobs and increased competition between the workers of the first and third worlds. This will either create an economy consisting almost entirely of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois (not labour aristocracy) elements, with the exploited proletariat outsourced into the third world, or it will create a vast army of unemployed workers in the first world who will be a destabilising force in the politics of the imperialist nations. The social democrats and neo-liberals who govern the first world nations clearly hope that it is the former possibility which will happen - you only have to listen to any of Gordon Brown's recent speeches to see this - but it is much more likely that it is the latter possibility which will transpire. In which case, the vastly expanded and intensely exploited proletariat of the third world will be joined by a vast discontented army of unemployed lumpen-proletarians in the first world. This could well fatally destabilise the entire global capitalist system.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 04:38
The labour aristocracy didn't die out. It is alive and well. They are the 1st world working class, bought off by super-profits made by super-exploitation of the 3rd world.

All 1st worlders, workers included, are in the richest 20% of the worlds population.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 05:09
If 20% of a country's population was bourgeoisie that would be a "bought off" country. So when you say 20% of the world is labor aristocracy, you are saying we live in a "bought off" world.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 05:33
heiss93 wrote:
If 20% of a country's population was bourgeoisie that would be a "bought off" country. So when you say 20% of the world is labour aristocracy, you are saying we live in a "bought off" world.


Could you expand on this Heiss93? I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Also, I think potemkin has a reasonable understanding of how socialism could come to the 1st world.

However, I would argue that it would more likely be the oppressed nations within the U$ (i.e. First Nations, Black Nation, and Mexicano Nations) that would side with the 3rd world.

Unemployed lumpen could also serve this role as potemkin argues. I am just not sure. The future will show as to that though.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 05:41
Basically I'm saying look at the planet earth as you would a nation. If you had a nation where 20% of the population was entirely bought off, comfortable, with no hope of revolution. Revolution by the remaining 80% would be nearly impossible. So if thats the situation on a world scale. Your analysis makes world revolution very unlikely. 20% of a nation is too powerful to take on, how can 20% of the world be defeated?

Assuming there is merit to your LA argument, 20% of the world essentially assures perpetual bourgeois rule. No revolution in history has succeeded against 20% of the population.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 06:09
On this Comrade heiss93 we may just have to agree to disagree.

I think that the 5 billion people in the third world could easily overtake and destroy imperialism. For example, if there were a Maoist-Third worldist revolution in China alone, it would simply destroy the U$ economy. The U$ is so dependent on the cheap labour China has, that this would be a nightmare for imperialism. Add that to a defeat in Iraq, cutting off a major oil source would cripple the U$.

What the world needs in order to liberate itself from imperialism is Peoples War!

Long Live the Victory of Peoples War by Lin Biao is a strategy paper that outlines this view.

Here are some cool videos outlining Long Live the Victory of Peoples War and how it applies today.

Part 1:Outlines the concepts of Peoples War

Part 2: Outlines Global Peoples War and applies it to current conditions.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 15:57
Redkuze, you've talked several times of a Mexicano Nation in the USA. What is that? Mexicans? or you mean the mexicanos, the nahuatl people. They don't live in the USA, but in central Mexico.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 19:59
Quote:
Long Live the Victory of Peoples War by Lin Biao is a strategy paper that outlines this view.

You mean the same Lin Biao who tried to overthrow Chairman Mao in a coup d'etat in 1971 and whose plane crashed while he was trying to flee to the Soviet Union, killing everyone on board? That Lin Biao?
Post 19 Jan 2009, 22:04
I don't think you can classify all workers in the first world as part of the labour aristocracy. Just because you earn more than your equivalent in the third world. I'm sure blue collar workers in China earn more than blue collar workers in parts of Africa. That doesn't make the Chinese workers part of a labour aristocracy though.

Quote:
I think that the 5 billion people in the third world could easily overtake and destroy imperialism. For example, if there were a Maoist-Third worldist revolution in China alone, it would simply destroy the U$ economy. The U$ is so dependent on the cheap labour China has, that this would be a nightmare for imperialism. Add that to a defeat in Iraq, cutting off a major oil source would cripple the U$.

What the world needs in order to liberate itself from imperialism is Peoples War!


I'm sorry but this is never going to happen, let alone work. Try convincing 5 billion people who spend all their lives working just to make ends meet that they should risk their lives helping to attack the most military powerful nations on earth and they will laugh in your face.

You also say that a new Chinese revolution would cripple the US economy. You do know how much the Chinese economy is tied up with the US economy right? China is an export-driven economy and since the US is its biggest export market it would be ripping the heart out of its own economy in the process. While the US would suffer a lot it still has other third world countries such as India to turn to in order to provide a cheap workforce.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron
[ Top ]