Re: [Marxism] Labor aristocracy

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

You're right, Marv, my statement was a little confused. I should have said
'Labor aristocracy theory does not say that the most well-off sections of
the working class *in terms of income* must be reactionary: such an
economistic characature leaves history, politics, and the balance of class
forces unexamined'. In other words, being 'well-off' does not merely mean
'having a high income', as I took you to intimate with your reference to the
Putilov workers.

Lenin does not say that workers with the highest wages must always support
the ruling class of exploiters. In critical circumstances, and with the
right political organisation and education, the most privileged section/s of
the working class *as a class* can take the lead in revolutionary struggle.
Thus, their aristocratic stature is diminished.

I did not say that the term 'labor aristocracy' was not value-laden. I
explicitly stated that to be a labor aristocrat was to inhabit a certain
ideological mentality. Ideology, however, reflects class interests
structured by the global class struggle. People whose class interests do not
currently chime with the wretched of the earth will certainly tend to adopt
the aristocratic mentality of their beneficent leaders. Ipso facto.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here.
http://messenger.msn.co.uk


________________________________________________
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