Peter Boyle and the labour aristocracy

["Steve Painter and Rose McCann" <spainter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some more questions from Bob Gould to Peter Boyle on the concept of the
"labour aristocracy" and what relevance it may have to Marxist political
strategy in Australia and other advanced capitalist countries

Australia is a former colonial settler state that has over the past 100
years been transformed into a relatively mature capitalist economy, and it's
important when considering matters of sociology and the class forces in
Australian society to look at the statistics of the existing class
configuration.

In November 2001, in Australia, the population was 19.2 million and the
population aged 15 and older was 15,417,800. There were 9,190,400 employed
persons, who were divided by occupation as follows:
managers and administrators: 730,100
professionals: 1,681,200
associate professionals 1,089,700
tradespersons and related workers: 1,177,300
advanced clerical and service workers: 388,300
intermediate clerical, sales and service workers: 1,575,200
intermediate production and transport workers: 788,900
elementary clerical, sales and service workers: 915,500
labourers and related workers: 837,800.

This employed section of the population was also by employment was divided
into four categories:
employees 7,960,900
own-account workers: 860,300
contributing family workers: 44,300
employers: 324,900.

A third way of dividing up Australia's 9,190,400 employed persons is by
industry:
agriculture, forestry and fishing: 445,000
mining: 81,600
manufacturing: 1,095,900
electricity, gas and water supply: 68,500
construction: 711,800
wholesale trade: 438,400
retail trade: 1,399,800
accommodation, cafes and restaurants: 458,500
transport and storage:421,700
communications services: 162,000
finance and insurance: 351,100
property and business services: 1,006,400
government administration and defence: 384,100
education: 654,000
health and community services: 909,800
cultural and recreational services: 233,400
personal and other services: 368,300.

Also in November 2001, unemployment was 619,500. All of these figures are
from the 2002, Labour Statistics in Brief, Australia, from the Commonwealth
Bureau of Census and Statistics.

Trade union density of the employed workforce was about 30 per cent. It was
higher in the public service sector, which includes a large part of health
and education, where it approaches 40 per cent, and it was lower in the
private sector, particularly small-scale manufacturing industry, finance,
real estate, etc.

In the private sector, union density was only about 25 per cent.

The net number of trade unionists was about 3 million. Of these unionists,
about 60 per cent were in unions affiliated to the Labor Party, which were
mostly blue-collar unions in the manufacturing sector, transport, mining,
construction, wholesale and part of the health industry.

Two weeks ago, Peter Boyle made a convoluted assertion of two contradictory
propositions: firstly that the concept of the "aristocracy of labour"
applied to the whole of the Australian working class; and secondly that it
applied to part of the working population in modern Australia. He also
implied that in some way this social category of the "aristocracy of labour"
had some bearing on the political views of Marxists in advanced capitalist
countries who took up the question of Zinovievism in Marxist organisations,
and he also implied that in some way the social category of the "aristocracy
of labour" had a direct relationship with the reactionary character of the
Australian Labor Party, as an expression of the "aristocracy of labour".

In a post a couple of days later, I asked Peter Boyle, and/or his associates
who share his view, to spell out in a bit more detail what was meant by
these concepts for current political strategy and practice, and did Boyle's
propositions in his post mean what they appear to mean?

I know it takes a while, sometimes, to prepare a considered response in
serious matters, like this, but now two weeks have elapsed and I'm
expectantly awaiting a response. To make the issues a little clearer, I've
decided to post the above statistical breakdown of the Australian population
and to supplement my previous questions with an associated question based on
these ABS statistics. Firstly, I repeat the previous question: is Boyle's
assertion that the whole Australian working class forms a "labour
aristocracy", or is his assertion that only part of it forms the "labour
aristocracy".

If it's the whole working population, then presumably the unemployed are
also part of the "aristocracy of labour" in the early sense that Lenin used
the term - that their economic privileges stem from some part of the
proceeds of imperialist exploitation of colonial countries. Would Peter
Boyle explain how this works economically in modern Australia in terms of
the social categories of workers enumerated in the above ABS statistics?

If it's asserted that only part of the working population forms the
"aristocracy of labour" (the second formulation in Peter Boyle's post) would
he give some rough approximation as to which part of the different
categories and groups of workers described in the ABS figures form the
"aristocracy of labour"? I will be satisfied with a very rough approximation
for this purpose.

As Boyle seems to associate the pro-capitalist nature of the Labor Party
with the notion of the "aristocracy of labour" in Australia, as a current
concept, would he attempt some explanation of how this works in relation to
the unions affiliated to the Labor Party, which are largely located in the
blue-collar section of the above statistics?

Are construction workers who vote Labor and whose unions are affiliated to
the ALP, "labour aristocrats" by reason of their political associations, as
Boyle seems to suggest?

All researchers and observers locate the bulk of the people who vote Green,
to the left of Labor, in the tertiary semi-professional and even
professional group in these statistics.  In Peter Boyle's configuration, do
these people stop being part of the "labour aristocracy" by the political
act of voting Green?

These are serious and important questions of sociology and politics and have
considerable bearing on developing a useful Marxist strategic perspective.

Pete Boyle opened this question in his rather enigmatic post of two weeks
ago, and I think he owes the readers of Marxmail a bit of an obligation to
respond on these questions and develop his views in a more concrete and
rounded theoretical way than he did in his previous post.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.