| Theory |
|
The "Labor Aristocracy", the "Middle Class", and Marxist Theory February 21, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
"Correct terminology" is a tough proposition on the left...and perhaps generally. In the "post-modern" era, "words mean what I want them to mean".
Such an attitude only results in endless misunderstandings and hopeless muddles.
In these posts, I attempt to discuss the "labor aristocracy" and the "middle class" as if they had real, concrete meanings.
In Marxism, one does and one doesn't.
==========================================
The "theory" of the "labor aristocracy" is a simple one, probably because it's not a "real" theory at all.
It's an ad hoc "patch" or "add-on" to Marxist economics. It was mentioned in some letters from Marx and Engels. I'm not aware that Marx or Engels ever attempted to develop this idea as an integral part of their economic theory.
The idea is that capitalists use part of their "super profits" derived from "super exploitation" of backward countries to "bribe" a portion of--even a very large portion of--their domestic working class.
This causes the bribed workers to become more conservative in domestic politics and also willing to support further imperial adventures abroad.
Different "Marxist" groups have measured this "labor aristocracy" in different ways...some go so far as to say that the entire working class in the advanced capitalist countries are "labor aristocrats" while industrial "third-world" workers are the "true proletariat".
From the stand-point of Marxist economics, there are...problems with this "patch". It does provide a kind of "materialist" explanation for the lack of revolutionary sentiments that workers in advanced capitalist countries have displayed...but it's not really "grounded" in a Marxist explanation of how capitalism actually works.
For one thing, there's nothing in Marxist economics about "bribing" workers at all. Labor power, like all commodities, exchanges at a rate necessary to support its reproduction. An unskilled laborer is "cheap" to produce...and his market value is correspondingly "low". A highly-skilled and extremely productive laborer is "expensive" to produce and the price of her labor power is "high".
Capitalists made the discovery in the 19th century that it was possible to augment the skill and productivity of the "common laborer" with machinery...and thus to increase the surplus value extracted from him in the course of a working day.
But as more complex machinery was developed and introduced, the need for highly-skilled "expensive" labor-power also grew. If a capitalist replaced 100 common laborers with 10 skilled laborers, his labor costs didn't drop 90 per cent but rather some percentage considerably less than that.
Ever since, getting the "right mix" of cheap but not very productive labor and expensive but extremely productive labor has been a central concern of every serious capitalist.
But there's nothing in all this that requires a "bribe" -- a special payment to workers "over and above" their exchange value. The standard-of-living of the working class rises because the value of their labor power increases with the increase in the costs of reproduction. A "valuable" skilled worker requires good nourishment and a healthy childhood environment, a good education, etc. Those are expensive "inputs" that cannot be avoided. If the capitalist class "stints" on those items, the next generation of workers will be less productive and their own profits may suffer as a consequence.
In periods of rapid economic growth, capitalists can be "generous" in their settlements with organized labor. Because commodities are selling as fast as they can be manufactured, the capitalist might give back a small portion of the surplus value he might otherwise have kept for himself in return for "labor peace" and continued profitable production. He "knows" he can "take it back" when times are "hard" again. Meanwhile, he'll just increase his prices to cover the new wage increase and nobody will probably even notice.
It's hard to think of that as a bribe.
How does the "third world" tie into this? Well, in those countries, the capitalist "law of value" hardly operates at all -- they all still have some form of feudalism and sometimes even slavery. The exchange value of unskilled labor is minuscule and skilled labor probably doesn't exist at all.
Thus the initial capitalist investment is usually in raw material extraction or production of industrial crops (cotton, rubber, etc.) for the same purpose. In the beginning, it's all "dirt-cheap" because labor-power in those countries is "dirt-cheap" to reproduce.
But it's also very unproductive labor. Hordes of workers are required to produce the same surplus-value as a handful of skilled workers in the industrialized country. Thus the process of industrializing the "colony" begins...in the search for more productive labor and higher profits. The capitalist "law of value" begins to "bite" in a serious and sustained way.
What happens to the profits extracted from the "colony"? Some are reinvested there, of course, but we presume most are "brought home" to the advanced capitalist country. Are these profits used to "bribe" the working class of the advanced capitalist country?
It does not seem so...at least on the face of things. A capitalist might donate a large sum of money to a university -- for the "general" purpose of creating yet more highly-skilled and highly profitable workers. But most capital "must" be reinvested in something, somewhere...the word "enough" is not in the capitalist dictionary. Capital must make a "return" or it ceases to be capital.
Accordingly, it seems to me that the hypothesis of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries "profiting" from imperialism is false. Workers in the "west" are more highly skilled and their productivity generates more surplus value -- but their labor power still exchanges in the market place for the cost of its reproduction...as it does everywhere.
This suggests that if capitalism were to last long enough, wages would be universally identical for the same skills across the planet. In the long run, "globalization" is a process of equalizing the exchange value of any particular commodity anywhere.
If I'm right about this, then the question that the "labor aristocracy patch" was invented to answer still remains.
Why is the "western" working class not (yet) revolutionary?
___________________________________
Note: There is one small group that might legitimately be considered "aristocrats of labor" if not a labor aristocracy -- the trade union bureaucracy. These people (usually of working class origins) are not so much bribed as permitted by the ruling class to extract a commission (dues) on the union member's sale of his/her labor power in the market. This permission is granted in return for the union bureaucrat's promise to maintain "labor peace"...keeping class struggle from "getting out of hand".
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on February 14, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Contrary to what Redstar suggests, there are strata of the working class that are paid "above the value of their labor power." And more: Imperialism disarticulated oppressed economies, and articulates the imperialist ones. As a result, just living in an imperialist country means that things operate more smoothly and rationally (parts are available to fix buses, electricity stays on, food supplies are relatively reliable, etc., etc.)
So the benefits of imperialism reach some populations not merely through wages, but through larger conditions of society.
If I'm not mistaken, this seems to be the substance of your critique of my essay.
If a capitalist decides to consistently pay his workers "more than they're worth", what happens?
Are his profits not less than those of other capitalists who are paying their workers according to the market value of their labor power? Does he not suffer accordingly in the market place...perhaps having to charge higher prices for his commodities or make them from inferior raw materials or according to an inferior design?
Granted, if he has a monopoly or near-monopoly over an extremely valuable commodity...he could indeed pay his workers considerably more than their real market value -- and still profit handsomely by charging "monopoly prices".
But we know that's one of the countless "aberrations" of capitalist economies -- monopolies come and go. There was a time when IBM was "a great place to work"...their effective monopoly on computers and information technology made IBM workers "privileged" in comparison to workers in other industries, even hi-tech industries.
Today, Microsoft or Intel workers might well say the same thing...for a while.
In short, Marxist economics argues that at any given time a small number of workers might be receiving wages that exceed the real exchange value of their labor power and a small number might be receiving less than what they should be getting...but, over time, the price of labor-power converges on the cost of its reproduction.
As to your observation that "things operate more smoothly and rationally" in an advanced capitalist country, I agree.
But this elaborate infrastructure was not put into place because capitalists thought it would make workers "happy" or "more conservative". It was put into place because capitalists saw the need for it to support their own functioning. The working class does benefit from it...but that is essentially an unintended by-product of what was done (and is done) to improve the conditions for the conduct of business.
(I should also amend what I wrote to take note of the fact that strong and militant trade unions -- if they can manage to organize a significant chunk of skilled labor -- can also "distort" the price of labor-power in favor of the workers. But this, as we have seen in the last 30 years, is also an "aberration" that time "corrects".)
-----------------------------------------
I should note here that I find the Leninist hypothesis of "imperialism" as the "highest stage of capitalism" unconvincing.
The efforts of capitalists to penetrate the pre-capitalist world and exploit workers in those countries existed in Marx's time (and even before) and was noted, for example, in the articles that he and (mostly) Engels wrote on the "Indian Mutiny" of 1857 for The New York Tribune.
Capitalists in the imperialist countries do profit from imperialism...but they do so according to the capitalist "law of value". There's no such thing (except as temporary aberration) as "super-profit"...it's just profit.
Indeed, if you "super-exploited" a working class (or significant part thereof) for any significant length of time, both its productivity and its actual numbers would start to fall. Children would starve...and the workers would be too sick and malnourished to work at all. You, as a capitalist, must pay them enough to reproduce...or they will literally die out on you. (The new capitalist class in Russia doesn't seem to have quite grasped this fundamental truth...the working population there is shrinking and the average life-expectancy is falling.)
---------------------------------------
By the way, you need not concern yourself with the length of your posts -- at least as far as I'm concerned. Serious discussion should not be constrained by word-counts.
But you could save some work by omitting all statements and explanations of my non-Leninism or non-Maoism.
I already know I'm not those things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on February 16, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The petty bourgeoisie is very diverse, facing a wide range of conditions. This class includes many different groups of small business owners, professionals, managers and technicians, intellectuals and artists, and small farmers who employ little or no wage labor, with different people facing a wide range of conditions. Rising levels of inequality within the middle class are "pulling apart" and fracturing the middle class.
This would be in line with what Marx predicted; eventually the "middle class" is mostly subsumed into the proletariat while a small portion ascends into the ranks of the bourgeoisie proper.
I wonder if we have not reached the point where the term "middle class" (or "petty bourgeoisie") has lost its usefulness...it no longer really describes a clearly distinct class group, as it did in Marx's time.
Perhaps it would be better to speak of sub-classes or semi-classes -- groups that are being pulled apart by the twin "gravitational fields" of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
quote:
...we mainly looked at the types of occupations that place someone in the petty bourgeoisie--that is, we looked at middle class occupations to help understand how people fit into the capitalist relations of production. Secondarily, we also considered income and wealth as a factor that can influence someone's overall class position in society.
One can only applaud the effort to apply empirical data to class analysis...but trying to fit a very large number of people under a single umbrella looks very much like an exercise in futility.
quote:
Petty bourgeois positions typically have a number of the following characteristics:
they may have ownership or control of some means of production or a small business--like a small business owner or a contractor who employs a small number of workers (this is the traditional petty-bourgeoisie)
It's also the only one there is; it's based on their relation to the means of production.
It's true this population is more diverse than it was in Marx's time. Today's "small farmer" is no longer a traditional peasant but rather a small businessman.
And a manager with a substantial investment (not a pension plan; an actual investment of his own money right now) in the corporation where he works operates quite closely to the way a small independent capitalist does.
This class has always included the self-employed, of course...they "exploit" their own labor power even if no one else's. This would include professionals who practice independently (but not members of professional corporations) all the way "down" to the man or woman who does "odd jobs" for a living. The income differences will make a difference in their class outlook...but probably not as much as you'd might imagine.
Finally, I would also add those sales people whose income primarily derives from commissions: stock brokers, insurance brokers, real estate brokers, etc.
What all of these folks have in common is a certain kind of financial (and thus psychological) "autonomy" that doesn't exist at all for the proletariat and only to a limited extent for many who are usually considered "middle class".
They "feel" (rightly or wrongly) a sense that they can "always" say "fuck you" to corporate power if they feel it's necessary.
quote:
they may be highly skilled and may require a significant amount of training--like an airline pilot, a doctor, or a lawyer
See, this is where the term "middle class" gets "messy". An airline pilot works for an airline (almost always!) and, inspite of his elevated salary ($100,000 a year or more, though most pilots make considerably less), he produces a commodity (travel by air) and his labor-power generates surplus value.
A doctor employed by a hospital, large medical clinic, or health maintenance organization is clearly in the same position. As is a lawyer employed by a professional legal corporation...unless he has "made partner".
The substantial incomes earned by these folks allow some of them to gradually become capitalists in their own right...through successful investments. But it is a gamble...what they are risking is the money required to produce the next generation of airline pilots, doctors, or lawyers. If they lose, their kids will not be able to maintain their "class position".
quote:
they may have a significant degree of "autonomy" in their conditions of work--like a research scientist or a highly skilled technician working in a research lab or a government economist
I think the practice of "professional autonomy" has become largely obsolete...though remnants may remain. For the most part, the modern scientist or technician works under managerial direction as "rigidly" as a production line worker.
A long time ago, science was an interesting pursuit for those who did not have to work...now it's mostly work. If it results in a marketable commodity, then it's wage-labor.
quote:
they may have authority over other workers--like a supervisor, office manager, or ship captain
I would suggest that the key factor here is the independent power to "hire and fire". If you lack that, then your "middle class credentials" are pretty shaky.
quote:
they may be involved primarily in specialized, intellectual, athletic, or artistic pursuits--like a college professor or teacher, an author, a professional musician, or a professional athlete.
Another "messy" gathering. College professors and teachers are employed by institutions that sell a commodity on the market -- "education" -- and are therefore (whether they like to admit it or not) wage-laborers.
Successful authors are self-employed -- petty bourgeois. Unsuccessful authors have day jobs. Music is a very complicated field that has people in every class...from the "rock star" (a junior member, however looked down upon by "old money", of the ruling class) all the way down to the kid sitting on a stoop singing for dollars. Most professional athletes make the wages of skilled workers ($50,000 per year or less)...a handful become multi-millionaires. In sports, you're either a worker or a fresh recruit to the ruling class.
I think the real "middle class" is not only smaller than most people think it is, I think it's smaller than the RCP suggests it is.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on February 19, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| ...the people in Russia, China, etc. never had communism even though the ruling parties called themselves "communists". What they really had in those places was something they called "socialism"...but which was actually a kind of capitalism without capitalists. Eventually, the party bosses donated their red flags and membership cards to a museum and became openly capitalist themselves.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
