The review
Charlie Post. The Labor
Aristocracy Myth. September 2006
(This review is the
fragment of the article УOn the united frontФ)
The author is the teacher in
sociology in
The author writes in the introduction:
УЕThe broadest outlines of Marxist theory tell us that capitalism creates
it own УgravediggersФ - a class of collective producers with no interest in the
maintenance of private ownership of the means of production. The capitalist
systemТs drive to maximize profits should force workers to struggle against
their employers, progressively broaden their struggle and eventually overthrow
the system and replace it with their democratic self-rule.
The reality of the last
century seems to challenge these basic Marxist ideas. Despite occasional mass
militancy and even proto-revolutionary struggles, the majority of the working
class in the developed capitalist countries have remained tied to reformist
politics - a politics premised on the possibility of improving the condition of
workers without the overthrow of capitalism.
While living and working
conditions for workers in the Уglobal NorthФ have deteriorated sharply since
the late 1960s, the result has not been, for the most part, the growth of
revolutionary consciousness. Instead we have seen reactionary ideas - racism,
sexism, homophobia, nativism, militarism - strengthened in a significant sector
of workers in the advanced capitalist countries. Since the late 1970s, nearly
one-third of
This paradox poses a crucial
challenge for revolutionary Marxists. However, we need to avoid УmythologicalФ
explanations, imagined explanations for real phenomena, whether to interpret
natural events or to explain the nature of society. Unfortunately, one of the
most influential explanations within the left for working class reformism and
conservatism - the theory of the Уlabor aristocracyФ - is such a mythЕФ
The author resorts to tricks from the outset. He jumps from one topic
to another. At first paragraph, where he states Marxist predictions briefly, he
says nothing about what countries, developed or not developed, are meant. But at second paragraph Charlie Post
speaks only about developed countries. And Уthe reality of the last century
seemsФ to
him Уto
challenge these basic Marxist ideasФ, because the author is merely unaware of 20th centuryТs
revolutions. This is the sign of great-power ignorance: American and European
УMarxistsФ speak only about pre-Leninist Marxism, just as Russian УcommunistsФ
donТt know the examples of proletarian dictatorship with the exception the
Commune of Paris and October revolution.
So, the theory of the labor aristocracy is supposedly Уa mythФ.
But how the author proved
that?
At first Charlie Post writes that УFrederick Engels first
introduced the notion of the Уlabor aristocracyФФ and states briefly EngelsТ
view on that matter by the example of England, but Post doesnТt say what Marx
wrote about that, also he doesnТt say, whether he agree with Engels or not.
Then the author states briefly LeninТs position and admits that Уwhile the mainstream Communist Parties
generally distanced themselves from the notion of the labor aristocracy as they
moved toward reformist politics in the late 1930s, certain left-wing opponents
of the Communist Parties continue to defend the theoryФ. Then the author
gives the examples of Leninist groups in USA and Australia, which admit the
theory of the labor aristocracy and which have emerged since 1970, when Уliving
and working conditions for workers in the Уglobal NorthФ have deteriorated sharplyФ,
according to Post himself. Moreover, he recognize that Уimportant groups of
activists, in particular those working with low-wage workers, are also drawn to
the theory of the labor aristocracyФ. IsnТt it the evidence of the fact that the
reality of the last 30-40 years seems not to УchallengeФ, but to prove to be true these Уbasic Marxist
ideasФ? Incidentally, it is necessary to point out that Post oversimplifies
LeninТs position when he retells it. He writes:
УLenin located the economic
foundation of the labor aristocracy in the Уsuper-profitsФ generated through
imperialist investment in what we would today call the Уthird worldФ or Уglobal
SouthФЕФ
It is very simplistic
interpretation. Super-profit economically
arises from the large scale of capital, from its monopolistic character; it is
the addition to profit which caused by concentration of capital, by the scale
of capital. And the early stages of that theory are present in УCapitalФ, i.e.
not only Engels wrote about the theory of super-profits and the theory of labor
aristocracy which connected with the former. Marx wrote that the benefit from
the concentration of capital becomes apparent, if nothing else, from the fact,
that in large building one can gather workers which would work in small buildings,
because building expenses, repair expenses etc. per worker for large building
is less than for small one. Super-profit is obtained from ruining of petty
bourgeoisie, from the exploitation of the УownФ proletariat, from the part of
the profit of petty bourgeoisie by means of monopolistic prices. Competitive struggle
for super-profits between monopolist groups, imperialist nations give rise to
the division of the world into the spheres of influence. Colonial oppression,
occupation of other countries gives super-profits, because it excludes
competitors, moreover, colonial oppression gives super-profits not only in the
case of the УThird worldФ, but in all
cases, in the cases of all countries.
To say that Уthe Уsuper-profitsФ generated through imperialist investment in
what we would today call the Уthird worldФ or Уglobal SouthФФ means to
vulgarize the matter. Under free competition investment abroad gives the profit
on a level of the average profit rate. The point is that super-profit is
provided by colonial oppression. But
Post oversimplifies Leninism to the level of Kautskyism. аааааааааааааааа
Post also oversimplifies
Leninism when he writes that competitive struggle takes place only in the
sector of small, УperipheryФ firms. But as Lenin argued, between monopolistic
groups there is competition too, and it resulted in world wars. Post
oversimplifies Leninism to the level of Kautskyism again.
Then Post argues that
investments of УNorthФ into УSouthФ amount only to 1.25% of the total amount of
investments. But he takes no account that investment in the УownФ sphere of
influence brings much more profit than investment in the competitorТs sphere of
influence. On the other hand, Post takes no account the investment in arms race,
in waging wars, although it provides the control over the spheres of influence,
therefore, provides super-profits. Also he takes no account the policy of
monopolistic prices (buying of raw materials by УNorthФ from УSouthФ at low
prices and selling of finished products by УNorthФ to УSouthФ at overprices),
which provides that sizeable share of surplus value becomes a part of profit of
УNorthФ corporations.
УIt is not surprising that the
global South accounts for only 20% of global manufacturing output, mostly in
labor-intensive industries such as clothing, shoes, auto parts and simple
electronicsФ
This argument is naïve.
As we see, PostТs logic is such: is it possible to derive much benefit from УSouthФ,
if it produces only 20% of global manufacturing output? But the part of profits
of УSouthФ transfers to the profit of monopolistic corporations of УNorthФ as the
addition to profit which caused by concentration of capital.
National-liberation revolution at УSouthФ, which is going on last century,
suggests that the old relations of production already not correspond to new
productive forces, that national bourgeoisie (in alliance with proletariat)
already stronger economically than colonial authorities, but not yet УconstituteФ
(saying by MarxТ words) itself as a power politically (just as Marx and Engels
wrote about pre-revolutionary France of 18th century). In other
words, the share of УSouthФ in world profits already not corresponds to its increased
economical strength. Just the colonial oppression from the side of УNorthФ
prevent УSouthФ from getting the share in profits which corresponds to its
economical potential.
To say Уis it possible to
derive much benefit from УSouthФ, if it produces only 20% of global
manufacturing outputФ is the same as to say Уis it possible to derive much benefit
from proletarian, if he earns only 4.000 rubles a monthФ [cost of living in
Russia in 2007, which corresponded nearly to 800 USD by purchasing-power parity
Ц A. G.].
At the other extreme are
Maoists, which drivel that УSouthФ have the labor productivity not less than УNorthТsФ
one, but the wealth of North is resulted from benefitting profits from South
too. Maoists pass over in silence that super-profits are not fall from the sky,
but have material base; that just economic superiority of УNorthФ over УSouthФ
enables receiving super-profits as the addition to profit which caused by the
scale of capital.
УIn Capital, Volume III, Marx recognized
that foreign investment was one of a number of УcountervailingФ tendencies to
the decline of the rate of profit. Put simply, the export of capital from the
global North to the global South, especially when invested in production
processes that are more labor intensive than those found in the advanced
capitalist countries, tends to raise the mass and rate of profit in the North.
There is indeed some evidence that foreign profits - from investments in both
the global North and global South - constitute an important counter tendency to
declining profits in the
Profits earned abroad by
Our compatriot Marlen Insarov made the same error. As
a matter of fact, goods are selling not at their values, but at their market
prices, or, if not take into account fluctuations of demand and supply, at
their prices of production (that is invested capital + profit which corresponds
to the average profit rate). Under the freedom of capital flow (i.e. under the
absence of customs duties, colonial oppression and other protective measures)
capitals of equal sizes bring equal profit, if other things being equal too;
and no matter where the capitals are invested, whether in advanced country or
underdeveloped one. The ratio of surplus value to invested capital in underdeveloped
countries undoubtedly higher than in advanced countries. But the point is that
goods are selling not at their values, but at their prices of production, if
not take into account fluctuations of demand and supply. That mistake is
similar to KautskyТs mistake, which was made by him when he translated that
place of УCapitalФ (even Soviet opportunists recognized that mistake in oneТs
time). Incidentally, there is a discrepancy in PostТs words. Now he recognizes
that the profit rate for investments in УSouthФ higher than for investments in
УNorthФ. But above he argued that even if the profit rate for investments in
УSouthФ higher than for investments in УNorthФ then it is slightly. Above it was
advantageous to him because of representing that super-profits from
exploitation of УSouthФ are negligible. But why now he recognizes the fact, which he called Уeven if existing, then
unessentialФ? In order to represent that
УЕimperialist investment in the global South benefits
all workers in the global North - both highly paid and poorly paid workers.
Higher profits and increased investment mean not only more employment and
rising wages for УaristocraticФ steel, automobile, machine-making, trucking and
construction workers, but also for lowly paid clerical, janitorial, garment and
food processing workers. As Ernest Mandel put it, Уthe real Сlabor aristocracyТ
is no longer constituted inside the proletariat of an imperialist country but
rather by the proletariat of the imperialist countries as a whole.Ф That Уreal
Сlabor aristocracyТФ includes poorly paid immigrant janitors and garment
workers, African-American and Latino poultry workers, as well as the
multi-racial workforce in auto and truckingЕФ
So, Уimperialist investment in the global South
benefits all workers in the global NorthФ Ц but where does that benefit consist
in? Does it consist in the fact that under formation of the price of production
the part of surplus value flow to advanced countries, and the profit rate in advanced
countries higher than it would be if goods would be selling not at their prices
of production, but at their values? But does it influence on real wages? No,
because competition constrains capitalists to pay wages to workers on the level
of cost of living!
Evidently, Post repeats KautskyТs mistake. Kautsky
recognized that Engels was right concerning English world monopoly and its
connection with labor aristocracy. But Kautsky represented that with the fall
of English monopoly at the end of XIX century no country has absolute monopoly
at world market, and the division of workers into labor aristocracy and
proletariat became a thing of the past.
So, Post obscures the division of УNorthФ workers into
labor aristocracy and proletariat, as if he calms proletarians down: УYou are
also benefit from investments to УSouthФФ Ц calms down those who live in brutal poverty, as American Leninist
theorists Elbaum and Seltzer evidence, in poverty which is no less than poverty
in which proletarians of УSouthФ live, what even bourgeois official mass media
recognized repeatedly. It is disguised preaching of alliance between УNorthФ
proletarians with their labor aristocracy and imperialist bourgeoisie: УAll of
us have joint interestФ. Post reminds me one philistine who said to our
comrade: УBe glad that bourgeoisie give a job to youФ.ааа ааааааааааааа
So, Post, considering the source of super-profits,
Уputs the wagon before horseФ: he speaks about exploitation of poor УSouthФ by
rich УNorthФ first of all, but about large capital which is economical cause of
super-profits, about the fact that super-profit is the addition to profit which
caused by the scale of capital, about what enable УNorthФ to exploit УSouthФ he
speak only in the next chapter. It is dirty trick: to pass over in silence the
essence of the matter and return to it when the opponent is already УcrushedФ
and it is necessary to Уfinish him offФ.
Post asserts that at the time of economic boom
1950-60Тs corporations made profits above the average, but since 1970Тs their profits
began to lower and became below the average. What firms have the profit rates above the average in that period,
he doesnТt say. Evidently, there were not small firms. Evidently, super-profits
of large corporations of the old
superpowers were lowered due to rivalry with large corporations of the new superpowers Ц USSR, Japan,
Germany, and since 1980-90Тs Ц also China, then India too. So, what Post says
about is the declining tendency of profit rates, which not in the least
excludes the dependence of profit rate on the scale of capital. LetТs assume
that average profit rate was 20%, where the profit rate of small firms was 15%,
and the profit rate of large, monopolistic firms was 25%. Then the average
profit rate was lowered to 10%, where the one of small firms Ц to 5%, of large
firms Ц to 15%. In this and only in this sense Уthe eternal coreФ (УmonopolyФ
industries) actually ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааУwas
beginning to show more and more evidence of peripheral (СcompetitiveТ
industries) behaviorФ, as Post says Ц to put it more precisely, the profit rate
of modern large corporations becomes
the same as the one that small firms had
several decades ago. But, we added, nevertheless, the profit rate of large
corporations always higher than the
one of small firms, if we consider these 2 rates over the same year, whether
1970 or 2000.
As we see, Post УrefutesФ by fraudulent means the
benefits getting from concentration of capital, denies the obvious fact that
the concentration of capital, of production results in the increasing of labor
productivity, hence - in the increasing of the profit rate. As already Marx
proved, an artisan with the simplest instruments of production under the
domination of large-scale production usually gains no profit on his smallest
capital at all, at best he reproduces the value of the means of production and
his labor force, at worst he even doesnТt reproduce his labor force.
УThe notion that the existence of a small
number of large firms in an industry limits competition, allowing higher than
average profits and wages, is derived from neo-classical (non-Marxian)
economicsТ vision of Уperfect competition.Ф
For neoclassical economists, perfect
competition - which allows instantaneous mobility of capital between branches
of production, uniform technology, equal profit rates and wages - exists only
when a large number of small firms exist in a market. Any deviation from this
is УoligopolyФ - a form of Уimperfect competitionФ that creates obstacles to capital
mobility, different techniques, and higher than average profits and wages.
The notions of perfect competition and
oligopoly/monopoly are both conceptually and empirically flawed. Perfect
competition is an ideological construction - an idealization of capitalist
competition that makes the existing economic order appear efficient and justФ
But the acknowledgment of the fact that Уthe existence
of a small number of large firms in an industry limits competitionФ doesnТt
mean Уan idealization of capitalist competitionФ. Neo-classics which are modern
free-traders, opposing any state interference in economy, allege that
capitalism may be УfreeФ, and they advocate such УfreeФ capitalism. As distinct
from them, Leninists understand that free competition generates monopoly, and if
the competition more free then it generates monopoly more rapidly, stronger. Leninists
donТt advocate УfreeФ capitalism, they oppose capitalism at all, seeing
progressive character of concentration of capital under capitalism (i.e. the
replacement of large number of small enterprises by small number of large enterprises)
and seeing progressive character of УfreeФ capitalism, under which this concentration
grow the most rapidly, in comparison with УbureaucraticФ capitalism, under
which this concentration grow slowly. Objectively neo-classics turn their eyes
towards the past, they see their ideal in the past Ц in pre-monopolistic capitalism,
in the return from monopolistic capitalism to capitalism of small producers,
while Leninists see the problem solving in the future, in the transition from
imperialism to communism.
УReal capitalist competition - from the birth of
capitalism in English agriculture in the 16th century, through the industrial
revolution of the 18th and 19th century to the emergence of the transnational
corporations in the 20th century - has never corresponded to the dream world of
Уperfect competitionФФ
Yes, capitalism Уhas never corresponded to the dream
world of Уperfect competitionФФ. But until the middle of XIX century the
restriction of competition came from feudal
power.
Post cites a certain Botwinick:
УЕBecause fixed capital generally requires prolonged
turnover periods, new techniques will be adopted primarily by those capitals
that are in the best position to do so. Thus, although new capitals will enter
the industry with Сstate of the artТ equipment and other existing capitals will
gradually begin to replenish and expand their productive facilities with the
latest techniques, older, less efficient capitals will also tend to live on for
many years. This is particularly true within prolonged periods of rapid
growth... Rather than creating identical firms, competition therefore creates a
continual redifferentiation of the conditions of productionФа а
and concludes:
УPut simply, competition - not its absence - explains
the diversity of technical conditions of production and the resulting
differentiations of profit and wage rates within and between industries
throughout the history of capitalism. The higher wages that workers in unionized
capital-intensive industries enjoy are not gained at the expense of lower paid
workers, either at home or abroad. Instead, the lower unit costs of these
industries make it possible for these capitals to pay higher than average
wages. As we have seen over the last thirty years, however, only effective
worker organization can secure and defend these higher than average wagesФ
Mr. Post has played dirty trick again! At first he
imputes Kautskyist nonsense that the monopoly excludes the competition to Lenin
(Post does it above too, when he divides firms into УmonopolisticФ and УcompetitorФ),
then he preaches Уwith scholarly look of expertФ: Уcompetition - not its
absence - explains the diversity of technical conditions of production and the
resulting differentiations of profit and wage rates within and between
industries throughout the history of capitalismФ. In fact, Lenin criticized
Kautsky for his assertions that monopoly can replace competition, and
contradictions between monopolistic corporations will become a thing of the
past, imperialism will be replaced by Уultra-imperialismФ.
Yes, new technologies enable to get increased profit
while the rest of bourgeoisie have old technologies. ItТs right. But who, what bourgeoisie have the opportunity to
renew their own equipment earlier than others, have the opportunity to use the
newest technologies, and, thus, have the lowest cost of production? Naturally,
big bourgeoisie have. Furthermore, big capital can put the brakes on the
development of productive forces in colonies in order to prevent them from
getting the necessary material base for national independence.
On the other hand, big monopolistic capital gets a profit bigger than capital of the same
size and with the same technical equipment, but not yet constituted its power.
The example of that is respectively
Post says about Уthe diversity of technical conditions
of production and the resulting differentiations of profit and wage rates
within and between industries throughout
the history of capitalismФ (italicized by me Ц A. G.). By this assertion
Post demonstrates the total absence of concrete historical approach in his
argumentation. In fact, in the past, in pre-monopolistic period several firms
didnТt get steady high profits, profits were fluctuating around average value,
in contrast to modern period, when large corporations get steady high profits,
and small firms get steady low profits (of course, the fluctuations of profit
rates during economical circle take place both at large and small firms, but
they occur around significantly different values of profit rates).
Incidentally, Post, who alleges, that the theory of
labor aristocracy is УmythФ, at the same time acknowledges that
УNor are the УbenefitsФ of increased profitability and
growth due to imperialist investment distributed equally to all portions of the
working class. As we will see below, the racial-national and gender structuring
of the labor market result in women and workers of color being concentrated in
the labor-intensive and low-wage sectors of the economyФ
So, Post, acknowledging Уinequality of distribution of
imperialist УbenefitsФ between the portions of the working classФ, acknowledges
by that the correctness of the theory of labor aristocracy, but he does it
apprehensively, unwillingly, when this theory is already УdemolishedФ by him.
However hard those gentlemen УscientistsФ may try to allege that Leninism is
УmythФ, they are unable to keep evident corroborations of Leninism by the life, by the practice back, and
they are compelled to acknowledge these corroborations, but do it with thousand
reservations.
As we saw already at introduction, Post denies the
connection between labor aristocracy and opportunism. In his opinion, the most
striking example, which refutes that connection, is the fact, that Bolsheviks
were supported in 1917 just by high-paid workers of large factories, while
Mensheviks were supported by low-paid workers of small factories. If for Mr.
Post this unsuccessful example is the
most striking Ц I donТt know how to reactЕ Really, was
Furthermore, is it a truth? Is it a truth that
Bolsheviks were supported by high-paid workers of large factories, while
Mensheviks were supported by low-paid workers of small factories? Charlie Post
cites a certain David Mandel. The citation is evidently unconvincing. It will
be possible to name this example УstrikingФ, if Post cites Lenin, for example.
As I remember, Lenin really wrote at one place, that
Bolsheviks are supported more by workers of large factories: although they are high-paid,
they are more organized. But he wrote this before
1914! In
As a matter of fact, the split into Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks was of world-wide historical importance Ц it was the split into
revolutionary Marxism and opportunism, into proletariat and labor aristocracy.
Menshevism, legal Marxism, Bernshteinism with its allegations about the
improvement of living standards of workers were connected naturally Ц in Russia
too Ц with that stratum of workers, which conditions were really improving
within the limits of capitalism, but in Russia this stratum was much less than
in the West, and it turned out easier to defeat opportunism. Lenin repeatedly
wrote about this. He also wrote that Menshevik organization was wealthier than
Bolshevik one, and if Bolsheviks have overtaken them at membership fees by 1912,
it was made because of great number of workers, each of them gave a little sum,
i.e. donation to the newspaper per head
in Bolshevik organization was considerably fewer than in Menshevik organization.
But Post didnТt consider these facts.
We see the evidence of the theory of labor aristocracy
by the example of Tsarist Russia not only in scientific literature, but in
realistic fiction too. Take for example
Bolshevism is inseparable from LeninТs theory of labor
aristocracy, and to say that Bolsheviks were supported by labor aristocracy as
Post does Ц means to say nonsense, means to cross out the history with one
stroke of the pen, in addition citing some УauthorityФ.
So, according to Post, the basis of opportunism is not
labor aristocracy. If that is so, then what is the basis of opportunism?
УThe objective, structural position of workers
under capitalism provides the basis for collective, class radicalism and
individualist, sectoralist and reactionary politics.
Bob Brenner and Johanna Brenner point out, Уworkers
are not only collective producers with a common interest in taking collective
control over social production. They are also individual sellers of labor power
in conflict with each other over jobs, promotions, etc.Ф As Kim Moody put it,
capitalism Уpushes together and pulls apartФ the working class. As competing
sellers of labor power, workers are open to the appeal of politics that pit
them against other workers - especially workers in a weaker social positionЕФ
So, according to Post, the cause of opportunism is the
fact that workers are dual, they are Уnot only collective producers with a
common interest in taking collective control over social production. They are
also individual sellers of labor power in conflict with each other over jobs,
promotions, etc.Ф Incidentally, Russian opportunist (who named himself
УLeninistФ!) Prigarin similarly see the cause of the presence of 2 currents Ц
communist and social-democratic Ц in the fact that working class is УdualФ.
According to Prigarin, on the one hand, working class struggles against
capitalism, on the other hand, it struggles for the improvement of its
condition within the limits of capitalism.
In fact, Lenin wrote about the dualism of petty bourgeoisie.
It is really so. Of course, proletarians also have
petty-bourgeois prejudices Ц careerism, economism etc. But they have many fewer
prejudices than labor aristocracy, and their prejudices are much less stable.
Post ignores the fact that among one part of workers the former (Уcommon
interest in taking collective control over social productionФ) prevails, while among
other part of workers the latter (the interest of УpromotionФ etc.) prevails.
It is similar to Russian idealist Bugera, who denies that social being
determines consciousness, that class consciousness in the modern society is
determined by the size of income (understandably, not for certain man, but for
millions cases).
But Post УbeatsФ himself. As we see already in the
beginning, he acknowledges that LeninТs theory at the УNorthФ was УcancelledФ
in 1930Тs from above Ц by
opportunistic leaders of Comintern, and began to revive from below, by communists who work with low-paid workers, moreover,
it began to revive in 1970Тs-1990Тs with deepening of the general crisis, with impoverishment
of the masses of labor aristocracy (the same can be said also about Russia,
such process began here about 20 years later, than at the West, but go more
rapidly). And Charlie Post objectively
plays the role of imperialistsТ servant whose task is to hamper this process of
revival.
Really, if the theory of labor aristocracy is a
УmythФ, why become necessary for Post to refute it 85 years later? The rise of topicality of this theory just at last
30 years, which Post himself acknowledges, already says that it is not УmythФ.
September 10, 2007
Gachikus ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
ааааа
а ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
