One of the biggest issues today is that the general left(left leaning liberal, left libertarians) rejects a proper class analysis or rather they reject a class analysis in favor of a cultural analysis. While culture and the like are really important to analyze, it ultimately avoids the economic question.
When one looks into the cultural aspects of things one seeks to solve it through shallow solutions which usually do not act as truly dynamic shift in the relations between people. One can solve things like racial prejudice or discrimination; sexism; gender discrimination etc. by creating hiring incentives, marketing/ promoting ideas of diversity etc. but what is left after all those things? Who put the power structures of oppression in the first place? Who holds cultural hegemony on society?
When you try to change society through your cultural analysis are you really changing society? Are you using your own tools? Or are you using your master’s tools? Are you simply now using your master’s tools to perpetuate the system of oppression to a diverse group of people instead one? Now the both the masters and slaves are diverse, multicultural etc. but there are still masters and slaves so what have you solved if you’re still using your master’s system of abuse and oppression? I don’t know of any slave who said: “we need more black masters, that’ll make things more fair”. It would be insane to call a slave who yearns for the destruction of the system of slavery a “class reductionist”.
Because slavery IS an economic issue, it IS a class issue and takes precedence above all other thing as the thing that almost constantly oppresses people. The economic day to day struggle is the class struggle, racism, sexism, the struggle for LGBTQ rights is all under the economic struggle; the class struggle.
deleted by creator
Another important aspect to cultural analysis and identity politics is that it naturally leads to divisions within the working class. People end up being focused on their individual issues and see people who prioritize other issues as competition. The class perspective unites the people towards a common goal, and that’s why there’s been such a concentrated effort to shift the conversation away from class analysis towards identity politics.
When you try to change society through your cultural analysis are you really changing society?
Obviously not, since to do so would actually require some action on the part of either the administrators of society or the masses. A class analysis wouldn’t do it either. An analysis can certainly inspire that action, but ultimately cannot do so alone.
It would be insane to call a slave who yearns for the destruction of the system of slavery a “class reductionist”.
It would be just so to call anyone who yearns for the destruction of the system of capitalism a “class reductionist” too because just doing so does not fully constitute the qualities that would make one a class reductionist. You are missing a larger argument from the people who levy that title on you. No, I highly doubt it is just because you wish to dismantle capitalism. Maybe in your composition, you should also explain why people think being a class reductionist is bad.
One thing I’ve always wondered is why the labor aristocracy question simply disappeared in all English-language socialist discourse. You can still see groups here and there discussing the issue fairly frequently, up until around the 1980s. Then it basically vanishes without a trace, with only MIM, and a few isolated academics, daring to bring up the issue at all for decades. The question has only recently come back, and even then, most English-language search results are about denying it.
It’s not like most of these people got cushy jobs in the imperialist labor bureaucracy, and simply stopped wanting to inform people how capitalism actually works. No, something political stopped this topic from being discussed in the English-language “Left,” and the powers that be didn’t anticipate this genie escaping from the bottle when the internet became a thing. Since no one wrote about why this happened, one can only speculate.
I think the most obvious explanation, is that, for many “Leftists,” they made their peace with “America” after the 1970s and Civil Rights. The “American” government showed it was willing to attempt to integrate the African population in a meaningful way, and as white “Leftists” grew up, they started to realize the casual racism of the white population around them simply doesn’t fly in bourgeois controlled circles. This includes the “Right” wing. If you don’t believe me, you can go do some reality testing yourself: go to any conservo-idiot forum, preferably somewhere that you can see the reactions on people’s faces, somewhere like Twitch or whatever equivalents to it exist. Say something mildly racist, something that isn’t encoded to have a dual meaning (one for the stupid whites, one for the Christians), and watch how fast they ban you and denounce you as a racist. The “Right” wing of “America” sees itself as the ones who directly have to interact with the stupid whites, and no one hates them more than them. They hate “Leftists” so much, because they hate these people, and see socialism as advocating more power for them.
Some of you reading this no doubt will find this hard to accept, especially if you don’t have any experience interacting with these people. But for a moment, allow yourself to assume this is true, or something resembling this situation is actually true. What does this mean for unions and the “Left” in “America?” It means the “Left” also figured it out on their own, and realized all talk of fighting the Labor Lieutenants of Capitalism basically means giving radicalized white workers a weapon to organize around, one that history shows is a very, very effective weapon indeed.
This understanding can even explain some strange questions, such as, why do some groups that do mention or allude to the question of the labor bureaucracy say certain “problematic” things? The Sparts occasionally do this, but the best example is the Northites. They do this because they know about this contradiction, and try to play to white workers within the unions against the “Left” labor bureaucrats like DSA, Solidarity, etc.
The rejection of this traditional class analysis is because of this. In reality, it isn’t rejected at all, but kept firmly in the back of their minds. Leninism (at least, the revolutionary part of it, and the analysis of the labor bureaucracy) in the hands of angry white workers would essentially be indistinguishable from national socialism of the German variety. It isn’t a big step from the Popular Front to collaboration with the capitalist labor bureaucracy against fascist workers (whether real or imaginary). What is instead needed is an ideology that justifies this, to get “Left” organizers to hold back the angry fascist workers from organizing against the capitalist labor bureaucracy. Whether it makes sense or not is beside the point; the question is, can it work as an effective tool for policing the capitalist labor bureaucracy?
Yes, but the capitalists go a bit further, to add levels of confusion on top of this. Communists had to go, and even today, being openly communist can get you in hot water with the leaders of the labor bureaucracy (though this is not as bad as used to be in the 80s and 90s, when even suspicion of identifying as a communist was grounds to get you removed). More specifically, any explicitly anti-capitalist people are never allowed anywhere near the leadership of the labor bureaucracy. It wasn’t until the year 1995 when the DSA managed to capture the AFL-CIO, putting “Left” people in charge of the largest imperialist labor apparatus for the first time, and they’ve controlled it ever since. Even still, there is always a division; explicitly anti-capitalist people, especially young people, are recruited to do the hardest shit work the unions need to do to stay alive, while the leadership is given to right-wing white guys who go to rallies and scream about Chinese and Mexicans taking all the jobs. The “Left” forces are there, mostly to keep out unruly groups who might cause headaches for the leadership, and “Right” wing leadership is there to make the stupid whites think these institutions serve their interests, which in a sense, they do, because imperialism pays higher wages than socialism can.
What is your criteria for the definition of “labor aristocracy”?
While I disagree with parts of what they said, I would tend to define the labor aristocracy as any proletarian that is paid so highly that they support bourgeois interests. This doesn’t mean that the whole voting population of western countries are labor aristocracy, as many of them do not have a viable left wing party to support. Rather, what I mean is people who would still defend the bourgeoisie even after they understand what socialism is. White guards, essentially, the kind of people who volunteered to help reaction because their bourgeois masters will give them slightly higher wages.
Now that’s a more appropriate analysis.
The harshest historical statement comes from the Comintern, which basically said anyone that works in an office is a labor aristocrat. While this is not an exact theoretical statement of the question, it gives a correct idea of who it encompasses.
Someone (cough not me) wrote a long post on Reddit, giving a much fuller theoretical examination of the issue, where the question is reduced to whether or not a person is consuming more value than they create through their labor, linking the labor aristocracy explicitly to parasitism. To shrink it into a political slogan, I like the idea of saying “Actually Exploited Workers,” because it goes well with “Actually Existing Socialism.” The labor aristocracy then becomes the opposite: any ‘worker’ who isn’t being exploited, because they consume more value than they produce, and are thus synonymous with parasites.
Oh, so this means that people that work in Administrative sectors are all parasites, and definitely not exploited? They do not produce value, since this is considered unproductive labor (based on the capitalist mode of production). [This does not mean they are not expropriated through commodification of life.]
According to your definition, the only exploited workers are producers of commodities. This definition based entirely on surplus-value [and productive work] is undialectical.
Pay attention to the fact that even office workers do not live a quality life as well. Calling those workers parasites should be a symptom of bad analysis.
Oh, so this means that people that work in Administrative sectors are all parasites, and definitely not exploited?
Yep, that’s pretty much what the Comintern is saying here.
They do not produce value, since this is considered unproductive labor (based on the capitalist mode of production).
Based on Marx’s own ideas. To quote him:
Adam Smith was essentially correct with his productive and unproductive labour, correct from the standpoint of bourgeois economy. What the other economists advance against it is either horse-piss (for instance Storch, Senior even lousier etc.), namely that every action after all acts upon something, thus confusion of the product in its natural and its economic sense; so that the pickpocket becomes a productive worker too, since he indirectly produces books on criminal law (this reasoning at least as correct as calling a judge a productive worker because he protects from theft). Or the modern economists have turned themselves into such sycophants of the bourgeois that they want to demonstrate to the latter that it is productive labour when somebody picks the lice out of his hair, or strokes his tail, because for example the latter activity will make his fat head - blockhead - clearer the next day in the office. It is therefore quite correct - but also characteristic - that for the consistent economists the workers in e.g. luxury shops are productive, although the characters who consume such objects are expressly castigated as unproductive wastrels. The fact is that these workers, indeed, are productive, as far as they increase the capital of their master; unproductive as to the material result of their labour. In fact, of course, this ‘productive’ worker cares as much about the crappy shit he has to make as does the capitalist himself who employs him, and who also couldn’t give a damn for the junk. But, looked at more precisely, it turns out in fact that a true definition of a productive worker consists in this: A person who needs and demands exactly as much as, and no more than, is required to enable him to gain the greatest possible benefit for his capitalist. All this nonsense. Digression’.
Pay attention to the fact that even office workers do not live a quality life as well.
Yes, and next you’ll be telling us Tom Cruise is an exploited proletarian, right?
The linked Reddit analysis also differs “workers” from “consumers”, but in a market economy, isn’t every worker also a consumer?
Congratulations on reading the title.
This line has been refuted by Rashid and the NABPP. In particular:
Marx himself stated those who presume there could be an “equality of wages” under capitalism, harbor “an insane wish never to be fulfilled,” and those who base political lines on such a notion reflect “that false and superficial radicalism that accepts premises and tries to evade conclusions.” Which is a true characterization in every sense of the VLA [vulgar labor aristocracy] proponents. So, because the cost and standard of living and thus wages are much higher in the US than, say, Nicaragua, does not—according to Marx himself—make the US worker any less a proletarian than the Nicaraguan worker.
As for consuming more value than they produce: if their employers are still extracting surplus value from them, then they are not consuming more than they produce. That’s the entire definition of being exploited, they are not being paid the full value of their labour. Super-exploitation is when, on top of not being paid the full value of their labour, they’re not even paid enough to reproduce their own labour. So yes, western workers do generally avoid super-exploitation, but they do not avoid exploitation.
This essay is quite old, and I remember it when it came out. MIM’s response Rashid’s Empty Rhetoric on the Labor Aristocracy is still probably the best, but for a lesser seen commentary on the exchange, you might be interested in this little essay: Is the Black Nation an Oppressor Nation? A response to Kevin “Rashid” Johnson. , which I think gets closer to the heart of the issue that Rashid seems to be dancing around.
Rashid’s own response MIM or MLM? Confronting the Divergent Politics of the Petty Bourgeois “Left” On the Labor Aristocracy and Other Burning Issues in Today’s Revolutionary Struggle applies to that. Both of your cited articles continue to make the error of attempting to rank oppression and exploitation on a global scale, and then say, “See, (Black/White) Americans are actually doing pretty well by those standards, how can they be exploited/oppressed?” If we go by that line, then we’d end up with conclusions like “Some of the national bourgeoisie are in fact oppressed/exploited by capitalism, because they aren’t high enough on the global QOL rankings.” While true, imperialism can force various national bourgeoisie to be unable to realize the full profit of their surplus value, this doesn’t mean that all of a sudden inter-class solidarity towards communism becomes a thing. Similarly, just because workers of one nation enjoy a higher QOL/wages than another, due to whatever factors, does not mean they cannot stand in solidarity with each other to achieve the overthrow of capitalism and begin to more equitably divide the products of their labour.
You’ll have to forgive my reply, crazy10101, as it will be intended for the reader, rather than as a personal exchange with you.
One of the things that labor aristocracy deniers seem unable to understand is that the third-worldist analysis of imperialism is an attempt to explain the current situation of the worker’s struggle in the advanced capitalist countries. When Engels said there is a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie in Britain, this is bound up with his assessment of the non-revolutionary character of the English-speaking European workers in Britain. It is an attempt to give a materialist explanation, rather than an ideological one, which all labor aristocracy deniers are wedded to. The white workers in “America” are just so stupid, and blinded by “false consciousness” (one of these terms used a single time by Marx/Engels, and then turned into yet another pseudo-Marxist theory), that they are unable to throw off their capitalist exploiters.
Moreover, since they believe 99% of the people in North America are exploited proletarians, they don’t believe in the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations at all, which Lenin regarded as fundamental. Those that champion the third-worldist position clarify things: the oppressor nations are majority exploiter. The way of life for the majority of the population is bound up with imperialist parasitism. This is what Lenin means when he says The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism…sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.
Labor aristocracy denialism, henceforth first-worldism, essentially believes the English-speaking European nation in North America is an oppressed nation, and in fact, all nations are oppressed nations, and imperialism is a non-phenomenon.
Okay, let’s assume that is true. Why isn’t there a white nationalist workers party, organizing white workers against the “American” government? Why hasn’t anti-capitalism of the national socialist variety captured the hopes of white workers for revolutionary war against the government? Rashid’s rhetoric, mostly hollow and empty nonsense, does get to the point here, when he allows himself to ponder over whether the African population in North America is actually exploited at all. This thought transparently causes Rashid to react in hysterics to MIM’s (mostly) clear analysis, and is the real point of it all.
Make no mistake, “Western” imperialism is in steep decline. A recent news headline making the rounds is that over half of young adults are living with their parents. Revolutionary violence is already sparking out of control, with cries from Democratic “Party” functionaries to get it under control. If Biden wins, you can expect mass-shootings and manifestos from violent white nationalists, and no doubt they’ll trot out Trump on TV to tell people this is all terrible.
My advice to Rashid would be to continue trying to organize the African population along nationalist lines. It could be possible to terrorize the Black Misleadership Class (to borrow a phrase from Black Agenda Report) out of support for integration with imperialism by a group of revolutionary minded people like Rashid, and if calling people petty bourgeois for making him feel bad about his organizing activities helps him do this, so be it. Meanwhile, the entire planet should be prepared for how the English-speaking European population in North America is going to react when suddenly they are Actually Exploited Workers. And no, they’re not going to embrace Marxism-Leninism. They will take from Marxism-Leninism what they find useful, and then wage a life and death struggle against “America’s” labor bureaucracy.
What will determine whether the planet has any future at all will largely be decided then. One can already look at nearly all the so-called socialist groups in North America now, and plainly see that they will rally to the shell of the “American” empire, rally to the side of the failed imperialist state’s labor bureaucracy, in an attempt to beat back what they will call fascism. And then the newly proletarianized white workers are simply going to annihilate them. The angry fascist white proletarians aren’t going to hold picket signs in front of the AFL-CIO’s conventions, calling Richard Trumpka a stooge of Zionism. They’re going to send people to his house in the middle of the night and murder everyone inside. The terror that will unleashed by newly proletarianized white workers, once they understand what a labor bureaucracy is, will be unlike anything ever seen in history.
Third-worldism, essentially, is just a materialist explanation for why this hasn’t already happened. And the labor aristocracy deniers will be leading humanity into the nuclear fire, just to keep enjoying the crumbs that fall from the mouths of the imperialists of “America.”
