Macdonald Stainsby (or rather Anthony) wrote 21 February 2003 05:33: > Subject: [L-I] On The Existence of the Labour Aristocracy
Some excellent notes: > A few notes on the social conscious, historical formation, > relation to imperialism, etc. - of labor aristocracies. ... (snipped to show only the portions on which I wish to comment) .... > The very different social consciousness expressed by these two > very similar labor aristocracies [Venezuela and Columbia}(in terms of wages, > living conditions, and social relations with other sectors of society), > have been historically determined. > > Social consciousness is not directly determined by economic > relations, but social consciousness directly determines a person > or group, or social layer, or social class's role in the class > struggle. Not completely historically DETERMINED but very much dependent on history. One only has to compare the activities of the miners in Yorkshire and Wales in comparison with those in Nottngham (where in the early 19th century the big coalowners took over from "free miners") during the miners' strikes of 1972 and 1984/5 to see the long arm of history. > Whether or not a particular labor aristocracy sides with the > capitalist class, or with the oppressed masses of their own > country, or of the world, is a key question in the modern class > struggle. > > The most important labor aristocracy of the world in terms of > numbers, economic power, and potential political power is the > labor aristocracy of the United States. What it does in relation > to the oppressed of the world - especially and most immediately in > relation to those in the Middle East and the coming war in Iraq, > is one of the most important political issues facing the world > today. > > If the labor aristocracy of US imperialism supports the war, it > will happen. If the labor aristocracy of the United States opposes > the war, it will not happen. > > At least for the moment the labor aristocracy of the United States > supports the war - passively. On the one hand, they are not lining > up to join the army. On the other hand, they are not planning a > nationwide general strike to stop the war. Whereas, in Britain, it is just large sections of the labour aristocracy (the second largest in the world) that is in the forefront of the anti-war struggle although, as yet, it is, in the main, the unorganised section of this class which is mainly on view, while the organisations under control of "New Labour" are still either acting as support for Blair or restraining their criticism to demanding "a second UN resolution". > However, beyond the immediate practical, and tactical > considerations for Marxists in relation to the labor > aristocracies, are some of the more theoretical points raised in > the discussion on this list. I hope I can address those issues in > the next installments of these notes. A very important contribution to the discussion, Anthony. I look forward to the next instalment, and hope my intervention is helpful. Comradely greetings, Paddy NFHS Member #5594 Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apling.freeservers.com/index.htm or http://www.e.c.apling.btinternet.co.uk _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
