RE: [Marxism] Labor aristocracy (was Re: "(racist's name deleted)....")

[Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Gallagher quotes rr's comments directed at me:

>Even more opposed to this crap about the white workers "wagging their 
>tails in gratitude" to the scraps offered them from the imperialist 
>banquet table."  Once again this is a vulgarization of Lenin's 
>superficial treatment of the dynamics of capitalism in his 
><Imperialism> and there just isn't evidence to support "co-sharing" of 
>"super-profits,"  the "rentier" state, and all the other bullshit, and 
>I mean bullshit, associated with that ongoing vulgarization.

And asks for literature on this subject.

The absolutely key piece to read and understand is Lenin's article,
"Imperialism and the Split in Socialism," written a year before the
October Revolution.

This is the "superficial treatment" that rr refers to, and he calls it
superficial because, I believe, he does not understand it.

He asserts that "there just isn't evidence to support 'co-sharing' of
'super-profits,'  the 'rentier' state, and all the other bullshit, and I
mean bullshit, associated with that ongoing vulgarization."

Lenin's article wasn't some treatise that really part of the working
class have become exploiters in some "objective" economic sense. It is
about the politics of privilege. Lenin says:

"Engels draws a distinction between the 'bourgeois labour party' of the
old trade unions -- the privileged minority -- and the 'lowest mass',
the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by
'bourgeois respectability.' This is the essence of Marxist tactics!

"Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the
proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and
opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be
definitely decided only by the socialist revolution."

Notice Lenin's flat assertion that no one can "calculate precisely" what
portion of the proletariat will follow the opportunists. That's because
this is about the politics of privilege and not the economics of
exploitation.

That rr doesn't get it is obvious from his reply to me, which he sent
shortly before I sent my own more extensive post on the subject, but
which I didn't see until afterwards, otherwise I would have made this
point in that post. 

Rr *assumes* that I must hold some theory of "'co-sharing' of
'super-profits,'" whereas I say quite clearly in that second post
*precisely* the opposite:

*  *  *

And also please note this is not an argument that white workers "profit"
from imperialism or partake in the exploitation of others. By and large,
and overwhelmingly, I do not believe that is true. 

Privilege works because your average fully "American" white, male worker
knows he can count on most likely being able to make, say $12 an hour,
instead of the $8 or $9 a Black or female worker might get, never mind
the $6 or less an undocumented immigrant might be forced to accept. The
typical white worker is also a chump, because he'd be able to get not
$12, but $13 or more if he'd join with all the other workers on the
basis of strict equality. But that means all the non-white, female
workers getting *privileged* improvements in their wages and social
status, it means the white male turning his back on viewing himself as
better than everyone else because he's "white, male and 21."

*  *  *

And I go on to cite Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in the Game" as a song
where he showed that Dylan (before becoming a millionaire) at one time
understood this. Let me cite the more relevant portion AGAIN in the
hopes that rr will see that the position being put forward is DIFFERENT
from the one he assumes I hold:

*  *  *

A South politician preaches to the poor white man, 
"You got more than the blacks, don't complain.
You're better than them, you been born with white skin," they explain.
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid, 
And the marshals and cops get the same, 
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool.
He's taught in his school
>From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

*  *  *

Joaquín


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism