Post by redstar2000 on Feb 15, 2004 16:32:05 GMT -5
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 one or two letters from Marx to Engels late in Marx's life. 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".
It's an ad hoc "patch" or "add-on" to Marxist economics. It was mentioned in one or two letters from Marx to Engels late in Marx's life. 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".
