From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 10:49:51 EST
Hi Paul B. > BOTH YOU AND SIMON M., IN A RELATED POST, SEEM TO BE > AVOIDING THE ISSUE OF A LABOUR ARISTOCRACY BY LOOKING AT WORKERS AS A > WHOLE OR ACROSS SECTORAL DEFINITIONS AND NOT THE SPLIT AMONG THE WORKERS > CAUSED BY THE SUPER PROFITS OF IMPERIALISM. By all means, let's examine working-class divisions. In the US -- and in the UK -- not all of these divisions are caused by the super profits of imperialism. Racial and gender divisions, for instance, pre-date imperialism. Craft and industrial divisions can not be attributed only to imperialism. Organized workers, especially in industrial unions, are not more conservative and prone to reformism than unorganized workers. Regional divisions among workers, within the US or UK, can not necessarily be attributed to the super profits of imperialism. It is unclear why 'professional' workers, e.g. academics, owe their privileges (to the extent that they have any....) to the super profits of imperialism (and it is unclear that they are any more or less reformist than the working class in general). Even within the branches of production that are dominated by monopolies (oligopolies) the workers do not necessarily receive higher than average wages and benefits. Indeed, especially for large corporations in the service sector, workers often receive lower than average wages -- indeed many are 'minimum wage' workers (and can hardly be classified as 'privileged labor aristocrats'). Perhaps you can tell us: _which_ segments of the working-class are part of the labor aristocracy and why?; _which_ divisions among workers are caused by the super profits of imperialism rather than other causes? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 07 2004 - 00:00:00 EST