Re Peter Boyle and the labour aristocracy

[Peter Boyle <peterb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Gould wrote:

>>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".>>

The question is whether there is a material base for the
persistence and dominance of opportunist politics in the
labour movements in the imperialist countries. Both Engels
and Lenin identified the relative privilege of certain
sections of workers (whether considered at a national or
international level) as importat to understanding the
contradictions in the general consciousness of the working
class. Engels' observation that the British working class
(even in the era of competitive and pre-imperialist
capitalism) had been "bourgeoisified" because of their
relative privilege on an internalional level was followed by
Lenin's observation that opportunism in the working class
movement had a material base in the labour aristocracy in
the imperialist countries.

These are two separate (though obviously related) arguments,
Bob, get it?

Both it would seem to me are applicable to the imperialist
countries. The gap between exploiter and exploited nations
has intensified, especially after two decades of neo-liberal
offensive. So my opinion is that the first argument
(Engels') applies to the labour movement in all the
imperialist countries.

What is the reflection of this in politics today? For one,
there is the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of
workers in the US and other imperialists countries that is
being waged in the name of the "war on terrorism" . This
ideological campaign turns on reinforcing the identification
of many workers (and other sections of the population) in
the imperialist countries with their own ruling class,
against the Third World. Racism and xenophobia is being
revived and the material base for this is the relative
privilege of workers in the imperialist countries.

Moving on to Lenin (and other Bolsheviks) theory of the
"labour aristocracy". If anything needs to be noted since
that discussion is not that the labour aristocracy in the
imperialist countries has ceased to exist but that Lenin and
his comrades were too optimistic about imperialism's limited
ability to sustain the "bribes" to the labour aristocracy.
Of course, no one could reasonably be expected to predict
the course of struggle of the rest of the 20th century at
that point in time.

Today in all imperialist countries, there are layers of the
working class that are significantly better off than others
(enjoying not just higher incomes, status and job security)
and this has a reflection in politics. One challenge for the
left in the imperialist countries in the abovementioned
battle for the hearts and minds is to exploit both the
growing inequality within the working class and the changing
boundaries of the labour aristocracy (which is reflected in
the specific conflicts within the ALP, for example) to
promote solidarity with the victims of imperialism and the
promote broad class solidarity.

Bob Gould wrote:

>>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".>>

I'll ignore your straw arguments.

Bob Gould wrote:

>>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?>>

The value of any discussion by Marxists about a social base
for opportunism operates on a certain level of abstraction.
But that doesn't make it less real. Similarly one could
speak of a social base for "Stalinism" or "bureaucratic
collectivism" in economic and social backwardness and
isolation, without conceding the total inevitability of the
degeneration and corruption of revolutions in the Third
World (as some Trotskyists argue about Cuba).

Further, Lenin's theory of labour aristocracy as a material
base for opportunism in the labour movement is consistent
with the experience that the most organised workers are
often from the better off layers. There is a dialectic here
that was discussed many times over by Lenin and other
Bolsheviks, including in the controversial polemic "What Is
To Be Done?".

But if you take a concept like the labour aristocracy and
try and implement them as deterministic criteria (e.g. X is
a better off worker therefore X is an opportunist) then it
becomes rubbish. Even more vulgar is a suggestion that any
one would argue that because X belonged to the ALP then X
must be a member of the labour aristocracy. But Bob Gould is
famous (in the Sydney left at least) for filling pages with
rambling straw arguments.

These arguments obscure the real lines of debate about the
ALP.

The DSP argues:

1. That the ALP is a capitalist party with historic roots in
the trade union movement. The fact that there is a material
base for persistent opportunism  in the imperialist
countries makes such a party possible (indeed common).
2. The ALP's powerful hegemony in the trade union movement
and influence over the working class influences the
*tactics* communists should adopt towards the ALP but these
are tactics *to break down the influence of the ALP over the
working class*.
3. Where the united front tactic towards the ALP is possible
communists support it.
4. At all times communists should remain politically
independent and sharply critical of the ALP and other
capitalist parties.

Bob's position is for a "strategic united front with the
ALP" something which he needs to spell out in more detail
and not just wave it around like a flag. I cannot see it as
being much more than a cover for an ALP that is fast
exposing itself as a dead lost in the eyes of most of the
activist left and many workers.

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