Where is the integration of the changes in the global financial system and the labor market of the USA over the past several decades into the conversation here?
The portion of Americans I'd call the labor aristocracy can't be that difficult to define. Finance, insurance, military, law enforcement, military contractors, real estate, management, tech workers, hi-end journalists, designers & entertainment workers. They can't live entirely off financial assets but they're weren't drowning in debt to the same extent as the US poor until they really got hooked on the jetskis and 24/7 treats, and they put their retirement savings into funds which blackmail entire nations along with the IMF.
The people who have a high position in these industries like the Washington Post workers lmao striking are a clear example of who not to give a shit about.
Many have no worker participation to speak of that would breed class consciousness. If anything those unions make workers anti-union. They go on strike when the leadership says so, but usually they don't because leadership is friendly with management.
Even in unions with good participation, there's a limit. They learn the class consciousness against their own upper management but not against the class. Or they think of themselves as PMC-ascendant and not really in need of a union in the first place. I've had so many conversations with people who have a union and then look down on janitors.
Unions can be a vehicle for class consciousness but only through militancy, political education, and an org willing to push those things.
Yeah sure my point is just that what they're organizing isn't a labor force consisting entirely of bourgeois workers who make their money off third world labor and finance.
There are lots of shit unions and unions which are only organizing bourgeois workers though, or worse, fucking cops
The idea of labor aristocracy goes back to pre-Marx, where it was used to explain why the English trade unions failed to radicalize and could in fact be pretty reactionary and imperialist. The idea was that while they are proletarian in their relationship to production (the labor part), they receive so much gain from imperialism (along with social status) that they fail to become globally class conscious. Instead, they support their country's imperialist wars that bring home the loot they split with their bourgeoisie.
This is reminiscent of US labor that was "bought off" by similar means a century ago and many of the remaining industrial unions in the US. Those for military contractors are the most obvious, but a lack of global class consciousness can be found in almost every union here. Knee-jerk support for other unions kicks in, so you'll see Teamsters and SEIU and UAW supporting Boeing workers next year despite the latter making the tech that eventually spies on Gazans and bombs kids. And in only one of the above is there a subculture that I'd call class consciousness (UAW via UAWD). Try having conversations about socialism in these unions and you'll have to scrounge for even basic class consciousness and might get hounded out by staff. The classism I mentioned earlier is rife in two of those big unions.
This is something we have to recognize if we want to rely on a labor strategy as socialists in the imperial core. I've seen a lot of socialists with very little labor experience but rose-tinted glasses about labor militancy from the late 1800s run head-first into union organizing and then becoming dismayed at what they find when they stop looking for the "corrupt union bosses" as the only ill. And those socialists that are anti-imperialist will quickly find that labor-focused socialists tend to be imperialist, as their efforts do tend to be in support of the conditions of a better-off subset of the imperialist working class. Try telling them to have a slightly critical approach to the Teamsters, who are both militant and reactionary. They'll start to get scared they'll lose what little labor connections they have (not a false fear).
Anyways, that's the old-school concept of labor aristocracy and also more or less the same concept used by MLs and Maoists when they want to look at this problem. It's an attempt to provide a material interest rationale for why the imperial core trade unionists almost always suck at class consciousness, especially anti-imperialism.
I'm just trying to do my part to add Capital Vol 2 & 3 to our understanding of the labor market in the US. Rents and debts etc.
Not to say that having all your Lockheed superwages sucked up by the aforementioned jetski castle villa with 3 SUVs & credit card debt makes you a proletarian lmfao
Yes 100%! I really need to start prefacing my long comments with context do people know my intent lol. You got it but I feel like sometimes it just comes across as criticism but I think we're very close on this stuff.
I'm simultaneously very tired of imperialist labor people and also active in radical-ish labor stuff
Where is the integration of the changes in the global financial system and the labor market of the USA over the past several decades into the conversation here?
The portion of Americans I'd call the labor aristocracy can't be that difficult to define. Finance, insurance, military, law enforcement, military contractors, real estate, management, tech workers, hi-end journalists, designers & entertainment workers. They can't live entirely off financial assets but they're weren't drowning in debt to the same extent as the US poor until they really got hooked on the jetskis and 24/7 treats, and they put their retirement savings into funds which blackmail entire nations along with the IMF.
The people who have a high position in these industries like the Washington Post workers lmao striking are a clear example of who not to give a shit about.
Unions don't necessarily do that.
Many have no worker participation to speak of that would breed class consciousness. If anything those unions make workers anti-union. They go on strike when the leadership says so, but usually they don't because leadership is friendly with management.
Even in unions with good participation, there's a limit. They learn the class consciousness against their own upper management but not against the class. Or they think of themselves as PMC-ascendant and not really in need of a union in the first place. I've had so many conversations with people who have a union and then look down on janitors.
Unions can be a vehicle for class consciousness but only through militancy, political education, and an org willing to push those things.
Yeah sure my point is just that what they're organizing isn't a labor force consisting entirely of bourgeois workers who make their money off third world labor and finance.
There are lots of shit unions and unions which are only organizing bourgeois workers though, or worse, fucking cops
The idea of labor aristocracy goes back to pre-Marx, where it was used to explain why the English trade unions failed to radicalize and could in fact be pretty reactionary and imperialist. The idea was that while they are proletarian in their relationship to production (the labor part), they receive so much gain from imperialism (along with social status) that they fail to become globally class conscious. Instead, they support their country's imperialist wars that bring home the loot they split with their bourgeoisie.
This is reminiscent of US labor that was "bought off" by similar means a century ago and many of the remaining industrial unions in the US. Those for military contractors are the most obvious, but a lack of global class consciousness can be found in almost every union here. Knee-jerk support for other unions kicks in, so you'll see Teamsters and SEIU and UAW supporting Boeing workers next year despite the latter making the tech that eventually spies on Gazans and bombs kids. And in only one of the above is there a subculture that I'd call class consciousness (UAW via UAWD). Try having conversations about socialism in these unions and you'll have to scrounge for even basic class consciousness and might get hounded out by staff. The classism I mentioned earlier is rife in two of those big unions.
This is something we have to recognize if we want to rely on a labor strategy as socialists in the imperial core. I've seen a lot of socialists with very little labor experience but rose-tinted glasses about labor militancy from the late 1800s run head-first into union organizing and then becoming dismayed at what they find when they stop looking for the "corrupt union bosses" as the only ill. And those socialists that are anti-imperialist will quickly find that labor-focused socialists tend to be imperialist, as their efforts do tend to be in support of the conditions of a better-off subset of the imperialist working class. Try telling them to have a slightly critical approach to the Teamsters, who are both militant and reactionary. They'll start to get scared they'll lose what little labor connections they have (not a false fear).
Anyways, that's the old-school concept of labor aristocracy and also more or less the same concept used by MLs and Maoists when they want to look at this problem. It's an attempt to provide a material interest rationale for why the imperial core trade unionists almost always suck at class consciousness, especially anti-imperialism.
💯💯💯💯💯
I'm just trying to do my part to add Capital Vol 2 & 3 to our understanding of the labor market in the US. Rents and debts etc.
Not to say that having all your Lockheed superwages sucked up by the aforementioned jetski castle villa with 3 SUVs & credit card debt makes you a proletarian lmfao
Yes 100%! I really need to start prefacing my long comments with context do people know my intent lol. You got it but I feel like sometimes it just comes across as criticism but I think we're very close on this stuff.
I'm simultaneously very tired of imperialist labor people and also active in radical-ish labor stuff