Technically yes, but in practice it’s not that simple. The term labor aristocracy exists for a reason. A minority segment of the working class can be bribed to sufficiently align their material interests with those of capital. On a personal level you can really observe a shift in the mentality of someone who reaches a certain level of wealth, even if they are still technically workers, when their lived experience diverges so much form that of the average working class person, when their material interest becomes tied to maintaining that level of wealth, when the people they surround themselves with are also within the same elevated social strata. They begin to develop a real petty bourgeois mentality that aligns with their non-working class social and material conditions, regardless of how they earn their income.
I know the relation-to-means-of-production purists don’t want to hear this but this is a real psychological and social phenomenon that we do ourselves a disservice to discount. It’s because this is not always understood that some Marxists get confused as to why so much of the western working class is as reactionary as it is, but you cannot get the full picture just by looking at class in the strictest orthodox Marxist definition alone.
I very much disagree still. Yes, proles can be sufficiently bribed to support bourgeois rule, and it makes them arses, and it makes them reactionary, but it doesn’t change their material interest, which is basically the main point of class analysis.
I find this labour aristocracy point to typically be pushed by people who think it’s a modern phenomenon, when it really isn’t. Marx saw colonialism and the countries’ worth of bribed, reactionary proles it made, but that really isn’t important to the point he was making with the class model.
Even wealthy proles would substantially and materially benefit from the overhaul capitalism. Thus, class consciousness would and should reasonably lead them to support socialism. That is the point.
Even wealthy proles would substantially and materially benefit from the overhaul capitalism. Thus, class consciousness would and should reasonably lead them to support socialism. That is the point.
Except sometimes they wouldn’t. There are people who nominally earn their income as employees who would absolutely earn less and have less privileges and “treats” under socialism. They are not a majority but they exist.
I’m not claiming this analysis is new. Of course the labor aristocracy also existed in Marx’s time. And i’m not just referring to how the working class in the imperial core broadly benefits from the exploitation of the global proletariat. I’m taking about people who even compared to the majority of the working class in the imperial core, are much more well off. These are typically the intelligentsia, highly skilled professionals, and a small portion of artists who get very lucky. As a result they are extremely individualistic and perceive things like unions or collective bargaining as dragging them down, because they are (or think they are) sufficiently irreplaceable to be able to negotiate better contracts individually. Whether or not this is actually the case is another matter, but this is how they perceive their material interests.
The point i’m trying to make is that you are discounting the impact that lifestyle and social (not economic) class has on a person’s perception of their own material interests. It’s easy to say “they just need class consciousness” but it is very hard to get people to have class consciousness when their lived experience has more in common with that of a capitalist than of the average worker (sometimes they are even better off than most petty bourgeois).
If you refuse to understand this you will be perpetually disappointed and wonder why time and again people who in theory are supposed to be working class according to their relation to the means of production, consistently act against their own class interest and reliably side with capital instead.
Like, i’m sorry, but you’re just not going to get someone who makes a six figure salary support a communist party or socialist revolution (at least not until the momentum of the revolution has grown to a point where not supporting it would be dangerous, at which point some of the petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy may switch sides). If you think otherwise you really need to get out more, learn how people in that income bracket think and how they align politically.
That’s not true. There are people in California that make 6 figure income that support socialism/communism. A low 6 figure income is not even enough to qualify for a 1 bedroom apartment in large parts of the bay area…
Isn’t the labor aristocracy also ultimately determined by their relationship to the means of production though, with the exploited workers of the imperial periphery made up of toilers who actually produce value and the imperial core workers comprising idlers who sustain ourselves on the labor of the periphery?
Technically yes, but in practice it’s not that simple. The term labor aristocracy exists for a reason. A minority segment of the working class can be bribed to sufficiently align their material interests with those of capital. On a personal level you can really observe a shift in the mentality of someone who reaches a certain level of wealth, even if they are still technically workers, when their lived experience diverges so much form that of the average working class person, when their material interest becomes tied to maintaining that level of wealth, when the people they surround themselves with are also within the same elevated social strata. They begin to develop a real petty bourgeois mentality that aligns with their non-working class social and material conditions, regardless of how they earn their income.
I know the relation-to-means-of-production purists don’t want to hear this but this is a real psychological and social phenomenon that we do ourselves a disservice to discount. It’s because this is not always understood that some Marxists get confused as to why so much of the western working class is as reactionary as it is, but you cannot get the full picture just by looking at class in the strictest orthodox Marxist definition alone.
I very much disagree still. Yes, proles can be sufficiently bribed to support bourgeois rule, and it makes them arses, and it makes them reactionary, but it doesn’t change their material interest, which is basically the main point of class analysis.
I find this labour aristocracy point to typically be pushed by people who think it’s a modern phenomenon, when it really isn’t. Marx saw colonialism and the countries’ worth of bribed, reactionary proles it made, but that really isn’t important to the point he was making with the class model.
Even wealthy proles would substantially and materially benefit from the overhaul capitalism. Thus, class consciousness would and should reasonably lead them to support socialism. That is the point.
Except sometimes they wouldn’t. There are people who nominally earn their income as employees who would absolutely earn less and have less privileges and “treats” under socialism. They are not a majority but they exist.
I’m not claiming this analysis is new. Of course the labor aristocracy also existed in Marx’s time. And i’m not just referring to how the working class in the imperial core broadly benefits from the exploitation of the global proletariat. I’m taking about people who even compared to the majority of the working class in the imperial core, are much more well off. These are typically the intelligentsia, highly skilled professionals, and a small portion of artists who get very lucky. As a result they are extremely individualistic and perceive things like unions or collective bargaining as dragging them down, because they are (or think they are) sufficiently irreplaceable to be able to negotiate better contracts individually. Whether or not this is actually the case is another matter, but this is how they perceive their material interests.
The point i’m trying to make is that you are discounting the impact that lifestyle and social (not economic) class has on a person’s perception of their own material interests. It’s easy to say “they just need class consciousness” but it is very hard to get people to have class consciousness when their lived experience has more in common with that of a capitalist than of the average worker (sometimes they are even better off than most petty bourgeois).
If you refuse to understand this you will be perpetually disappointed and wonder why time and again people who in theory are supposed to be working class according to their relation to the means of production, consistently act against their own class interest and reliably side with capital instead.
Like, i’m sorry, but you’re just not going to get someone who makes a six figure salary support a communist party or socialist revolution (at least not until the momentum of the revolution has grown to a point where not supporting it would be dangerous, at which point some of the petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy may switch sides). If you think otherwise you really need to get out more, learn how people in that income bracket think and how they align politically.
That’s not true. There are people in California that make 6 figure income that support socialism/communism. A low 6 figure income is not even enough to qualify for a 1 bedroom apartment in large parts of the bay area…
I call these the "fu, I got mine” liberals.
Isn’t the labor aristocracy also ultimately determined by their relationship to the means of production though, with the exploited workers of the imperial periphery made up of toilers who actually produce value and the imperial core workers comprising idlers who sustain ourselves on the labor of the periphery?
“Labor aristocracy”
Class traitors. I just call them class traitors.