Carrol writes:
I think Lenin's "labor aristocracy" should be thought of as the labor _leadership_, not the mass of "high-paid" workers it usually denotes, as it does in this thread. It is really a pretty empty term otherwise.
=============================== Clearly, from my own reply to Matthjis, I consider it's been viewed more broadly than that by Engels and Lenin and the revolutionary left. They thought the reluctance of British "workers" to solidarize with the Irish and Indian freedom struggles, or the capitulation of the all of the European "working classes" at the outbreak of WWI, were the product of "national chauvinism" which extended beyond the leadership level deep into the ranks.
If were otherwise, the out-of-touch leaderships would have been swept away by the strong anti-imperialist and antiwar left oppositions in the unions and socialist parties. That's the problem with "crisis of leadership" theory. It is never able to explain why - if the consciousness of the leadership was in conflict with the (presumed) more advanced consciousness of the base - the left rarely succeeded in replacing it. The sharp attacks on the leadership by the left opposition in the heydey of the labour and socialist movement was not only on principled grounds, but also - and perhaps more importantly - tactical: they really did perceive the insurgent masses to be in advance of the social democrats, and that openly calling for a break with the existing leaderships would strengthen rather than isolate the revolutionary left. At least, there was some foundation for this belief and the tactics which flowed from it in that period, especially in the latter part of WWI and the outbreak of strikes, mutinies, land seizures, and revolution in Russia and elsewhere. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
