Carrol Cox wrote:
Over on Marxmail we've been having a very interesting discussion on the notion of a "labor aristocracy". Here's a contribution from Anthony, a subscriber in Colombia and a long-time Marxist. I invite PEN-L'ers to look at the Marxmail archives for other interesting contributions.
blunting working-class power in the imperialist center. I don't think
Lenin was right about super-profits providing a bribe for imperialist
workers, but that is quite secondary to his core perception that
imperialism, _in some way_, underwrites opportunism in the working
class.
This seems to me to point in the right direction. Vulgarized theories of
a "redistribution" of surplus from third-world workers to the workers of
the core simply distract from the serious business of analyzing
imperialism as a whole.
---
A few notes on the social conscious, historical formation, relation to imperialism, etc. - of labor aristocracies.
I think the recurring discussion on labor aristocracies is very important, especially in light of the impending war by the USA against Iraq and the world.
The fact that privileged layers of workers exist, and have strong short term material interest in maintaining the status quo, is unassailable.
If you have a three bedroom house, a car - or two, electricity and the appliances that go with it, a university education for your children, a high probability of a pension, affordable medical care and dental care - you can not think of yourself as a person, or a member of a class, “with nothing to sell but your labor.”
You have strong reasons to fight to keep things as they are.
The fact that many, possibly the majority of, workers in imperialist countries have most or all of these things makes them a labor aristocracy - compared to the workers in their own countries who do not have these things, and compared to the vast majority of the workers of the world who do not have these things.
The fact that in the rest of the world important privileged minorities of the working class have some or all of these things - the house, the car, the electric appliances - makes those minorities into labor aristocracies also.
However, the fact that these privileged layers exist, and that they have a conservative stake in the status quo, does not determine directly the role they will play in the class struggle, nor the social and class consciousness they acquire.
To see my point, you only have to look at the labor aristocracies of Colombia and Venezuela, and the very different roles they are now playing in the class struggle in these two countries, and the very different social consciousness expressed by their different roles in struggle.
In Venezuela and Colombia the oil workers, teachers, and bank workers are well organized into strong unions. They constitute labor aristocracies if any sectors ever did: much higher pay than other workers, much better benefits, much higher standards of living, etc.
However, in Colombia these unions are the backbone of the left and of the opposition to the right wing government of Alvaro Uribe Velez. They have suffered more than anyone else from the government’s neo-liberal program of privatization, tax increases, and cuts in pensions, benefits and social programs. They have suffered the most from the paramilitary death squads.
However, in Venezuela those unions actively support the business strike organized and led by the reactionary cabal of the Cisneros family and their friends and allies against the leftist government of Hugo Chaves.
The very different social consciousness expressed by these two very similar labor aristocracies (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.
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.
The most important practical political point in this discussion about the labor aristocracy is how we can influence it to oppose the war. Clearly our actions can influence what the labor aristocracy thinks and does. Social consciousness is not directly determined by economic factors, not even by relative privilege.
I think that the examples of resolutions from central labor councils in different parts of the USA, and the participation of various unions (even not en masse) in the recent anti-war demonstrations, point in the right direction. I hope to talk about this aspect more, later on in these notes.
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.
All the best, Anthony
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
